|
Guest
Posts: n/a
Points: 0
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
|
Quote:
blanka09
Now see.. that can't be good for it turns us to simple ants! It doesn't sound plausible or reasonable for scientist to manipulate the genetic structure of a foetus in order for it to match or step up to the needs of the community it might face. Think of it, you're gonna have child.. and some foolish doctors are trying to turn him into macho man while he's still in the womb. As, the higher animals that we are, we are supposed to determine whether or not we choose to build up on our genetic code. If the blue prints of a foetus' genetic code would prove that he'll some time grow up to be really strong and probably tall, then so be it! I don't think it's a good idea for science to try and pre- destin (so to say) the lives of mankind.
I never said I liked it, i just said that was my guess.
Think about it....scientists are always trying to "play god." WHAT IF scientists could enhance the gene responsible for the body's ability to fend off disease and heal? We could be able to force-evolve humans that would be immune to the world's diseases and be able to self-heal wounds. In an instant, scientists could theoretically make evolution happen. Remember what I said: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
Scientists could force-mutate the gene responsible for the body's ability to defend against diseases. They breed a new generation of humans, and presto! You have a group of individuals. Give the group time, and they can breed. The genetic changes are passed on, and eventually, once all the pre-evolution humans die off, you have a brand new species of human beings, completely impervious to any disease known to man. Evolution at its best, for its best.
So naturally, my guess is that scientists would say "why stop there?" Since I predict that our bodies will stop evolving due to laziness, scientists will most likely try to alter the genes responsible for muscle growth, etc, and therefore be able to EVOLVE a healthier race of human, capable of maintaining great physical strength without having to work out and build up muscle via physical workouts. That's just my guess though, like I said.
Quote:
Anyway, let's get back to the real world. Why did the gene responsible for that mutation affect a group of moths... rather than just one moth. After all, as Darwin states, an individual mutates, bears offspring and the genes are transferred... think hereditry.. from the recessibe form to the dormant form. What if that very gene is recessive in some of the white moths... call it far fetched.. but like you say... it is after all a wild guess. But my point is, there's no particular evidence that the so-called gene that caused the mutation didn't take hold of one moth before spreading to its offspring.
I do have to admit, it is indeed a possibility, and a good one at that. The possibility is very large that the mutation could have indeed begun with just one moth, and then via breeding would have increased to many moths (the original's offspring). Let me offer my opinion on the matter (I am in no way disregarding your statement, but merely offering a different possibility that could go along with it).
Changes based solely on environmental conditions do NOT count as evolution. For example, many people believe that humans are still evolving, because humans of today are much larger and stronger than we were in the recent past....say....200 or 300 years ago. This is NOT, however, due to evolution. This was do to factors such as better medicine and a healthier diet. Such things do not affect the genes of the humans, and therefore are not hereditary traits.
It IS possible, however, that environmental changes could sometimes be the reason why the genes mutate. For example, the moths. It is indeed possible that when the dark colored moths were still the 2% minority, they may have been temporarily separated from the main group of light colored moths. This group then may have encountered situations in the environment--most likely predatorial activities--that would have forced the moths to unconsciously and unknowingly alter their own genes, changing their color to hide better. Therefore, they may all have been affected at once, forming the original mutant group.
That is just a possibility, however. Your idea does indeed make perfect sense, and I can't debate against it from a factual stantpoint.
___________
SSJ Karma: Let me briefly give my feelings on science's outlook vs religion's outlook, just so we can clarify something.
According to religion....god (or some other higher power, depending on your religion) created man. Man then created science. Science, however, is filled with much error, and is therefore less accurate than religion.
According to science....evolution/science created man. Then, man created god...or rather, the idea of god. Man has ALWAYS been a curious race, asking questions. However, before the dawn of science, such answers were not available. Therefore, man created religion in order to try and answer questions without proof. Then, when science was better developed, it became capable of answering the questions that they previously looked to religion for.
Let me use an example: According to the bible, the sun rotates around the earth, the earth is older than the sun, and the earth has only existed for about 12,000 years. According to science, the earth rotates around the sun, the sun is older than the EARTH, and the earth has existed for billions of years.
Now, science will say "religion is wrong, because science has been able to determine the age of the earth and the sun." Religion, however, has a rebuttal: "god created man, man is filled with error. Therefore, science is not accurate, because it is man-created, and therefore errored. Religion is the true answer."
However, science can also say "No...science created man, and man in turn created religion. Therefore, religion is not accurate, because it is man created, and therefore errored as well. Science is the true answer."
See what I mean? There will always be two different outlooks....one from a religious standpoint, and one from a scientific standpoint.
Quote:
kester_
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." (also known as entropy)
In other words: energy degenerates.
The theory of evolution completely contradicts the 2nd law!
You completely misinterpreted the Law.
The second law of thermodynamics does NOT translate into "energy degenerates." The second law of thermodynamics translates into "if, in an energy exchange, energy enters the system, then the energy of the system will be more than the initial state. If, in an exchange, energy leaves the system, then there will be less energy than in the state."
What if no energy exchange occurs?
Evolution is NOT a theory of energy. Evolution is a theory of biology, relating to genes. A gene is mutated, it is passed on to the next generation, thus the child is an evolved form of the parent. It has nothing to do with thermodynamic energy exchanges.
So no, evolution does NOT contradict the second law.
Quote:
next point:
Lack of physical evidence.
all the evolutionists have is some fossils that they say are 4 billion years old. BULL CRAP!
the fossils that they have found ( no matter how old they say) are clearly separate species and not a half way monkeyman. THERE IS NO MISSING LINK.
How would you know if it is "bull crap?" Are you claiming to have more knowledge of the universe than scientists who actually study this?
Scientists have fossils of a series of different yet alike hominid creatures that begin at a date of 5 million years ago and continue changing until 200 thousand years ago. The physical features are very much alike, the bone structures are alike, the cranial cavities are alike. The DNA strands are in the 90-99% match-up range. All we are missing is one specie of hominal creature that we have yet to find fossil remains of.
But of course, all scientists are APPARENTLY wrong, just because a forumer named "kester_" says so.
Quote:
next point
Logic fallaceis
just think about it.......................ok are you done?
just as I though, LUDICROUS!
Yes, there are possible fallacies in all of our theories. There are also possible fallacies in YOUR logic when you claim that there are fallacies in SCIENTIFIC logic.
The only ludicrous aspect is your unwarranted claim that science is wrong just becuase YOU think there are fallacies in the theory of human evolution.
Quote:
next point
Mathmatics prove it wrong
according to the evolutionary timescale the earth is approximately eight to ten billions of years old, that is the equivalent to 1020 or one hundred quintillion seconds.
according to the same theory there are approximately 1080 atoms found in the universe. even with these astounding numbers, it is highly unlikely to achieve odds such as 1 in 103,000,000 the same odds that a scientist named Edward Huxley estimated to be the odds of a horse evolving, let alone the chances of more complex life such as humans.
What are you talking about? Only 1080 atoms in the universe? How can that be possible, when the thickness of a single sheet of paper is the equivalent of about ten thousand atoms stringed together?
Find me a source that talks about this supposed theory of yours, because the way you put it, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Quote:
just as other theories have been subject to rigorous standards in the past, evolution must also be subject to the same testing. due to the logical fallacies, mathematical impossibilities and the abundance of physical evidence contrary to the theory of evolution it cannot be either plausible, nor believable
Ummm....
First off, no logical fallacies have yet been found in the theory of evolution. How do you know that there are no fallacies in YOUR logic? Or rather, the logic of your supposed sources?
Second off, there is no mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY. According to your post above, there is a mathematical IMPROBABILITY, but NOT impossability. And second off, I've never heard of any mathematical theory that even closely resembles your claim of a theory that states the universe only has 1020 atoms.
Third off, you COMPLETELY misinterpreted and misunderstood your first "reason" why evolution is impossible.
Show me some sources, especially concerning your "point" about how the age of the earth is a theory about 1020 atoms and a scientist talking about a horse evolving. I beg of you to find me a source stating both this theory as well as Huxley's evidence backing his claim that the evolution of a modern-day horse is a 1 in 103 million chance. I've provided sources for my information, you might want to provide sources for yours.
|