Morally Speaking, What Are Humans?

Why you keep going on that evolution is the product of chance I will never know. The facts are: mutations occur in DNA and therefor proteins and genes. Without mutations we would not have disease such as certain types of cancer or sickle cell disease. The vast majority of mutations are nuetral in that they don't have any effect on the creature. Some are harmful such as those I listed earlier in this post. Others are beneficial such as the mutations here and here as well as the lizards that had an expanded gut to digest plant matter in the link I can't find right now. These beneficial mutations come about via adaption to the environment via natural selection. Natural Selection is not due to chance. BumFluff122

[QUOTE="astiop"] You do know that the difference between micro and macro evolution is time right? Crushmaster

I suggest you spend some time in the Genesis Union. There the effort of proof for evolution is much more systematised I suppose and its harder to debate there for you while here you can pick easy short convos when nothing can be proven adequatly within a few lines.

It serves you well doesnt it?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7215/full/nature07189.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04639.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html

chessmaster1989

If we're on the subject of Tiktaalik -- I encourage you to read these links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0406fishin.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/missinglink.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/story-walking-fish

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/tiktaalik-fishy-fish

Of course, one big problem with this idea is that there has never, ever been a documented case of a mutation that has made an organism more fit to survive.Crushmaster

Doesn't improved anti-biotic resistance and being able to digest nylon count as making the organism more fit to survive? By the way, saying now that only mutations that "add information" count is moving the goal-posts, not to mention that since it's known that mutations can duplicate genes, they can add information.

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]

[QUOTE="astiop"]You imply **** such as "god created animals" and then you go asking for proof from another user? Are you ****** kidding me?BumFluff122

is this the link

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

You are. Let me reduce the reasoning of the latter quote in variable terms: Unless A is true, then we must conclude that B is true. Why must we conclude B is true? You've already debased the vailidity of A, so why use it to affirm the correctness of B. The two variables are not relative, and therefore the argument is redundant.

How contradictory of you to accuse other posters above of using an ad hominen argument, when the above argument you made is essentially one aswell.Packt

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]I have a question (for everyone): Do you consider death a "bad" thing?BumFluff122

Doesn't improved anti-biotic resistance and being able to digest nylon count as making the organism more fit to survive? By the way, saying now that only mutations that "add information" count is moving the goal-posts, not to mention that since it's known that mutations can duplicate genes, they can add information. Zagrius

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7215/full/nature07189.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04639.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html

Lansdowne5

If we're on the subject of Tiktaalik -- I encourage you to read these links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0406fishin.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/missinglink.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/story-walking-fish

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/tiktaalik-fishy-fish

Thanks, I'll make sure to read them, under the condition that you read the links I have given to Crush :).

That sounds like chance to me.

Look at this (Taken from Exploring Creation With Biology, by Dr. Jay L. Wile and Mariyln F. Durnell; published by Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. Page 299-300):
Neo-Darwinism was the first revision to occur in Darwin's theory. Remember, Darwin pretty much established the theory of microevolution, but when it came around to providing evidence for macroevolution, he was stuck. When scientists began to understand genetics, they understood why he got stuck. As we said before, microevolution is simply the variation of a type within its genetic code. Macroevolution, however, is a completely different story. In order for macroevolution to occur, a species would have to add information to its genetic code. How could that happen? Well, Neo-Darwinists said that it could happen by mutation. You see, Darwin thought that all of macroevolution could occur by the normal changes that happen during the reproductive process. When scientists came to understand genetic, however, it became clear that those kinds of changes only explained macroevolution. Something else had to add information to the genetic code. That something else was mutation.

(Skip down a few paragraphs)

Of course, one big problem with this idea is that there has never, ever been a documented case of a mutation that has made an organism more fit to survive. Most mutations are detrimental to the organism. Some are only mildly harmful, and even fewer seem to be benign...........

There's more of that paragraph, but this will do. The lizard example you spoke of sounds only like microevolution, if not just simply a strengthening of the stomach; like exercising.

Crushmaster

I don't see how that's a mutation.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
No, I am not. Nor does what you said have anything to do with this.

Unless Chance is one mighty smart guy, we must conclude that God exists, and He created all things. We must also conclude that everything has a Creator.

Ingenemployee

is this the link

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]I have a question (for everyone): Do you consider death a "bad" thing?Lansdowne5

Humans are flawed and, because of this, it is necessary that we classify concepts, ideas, and even other people as good or evil. Would you rather see our species die by our own hands because we could not transcend the concepts of good and evil or would you deny one and, in doing so, deny the other? The beauty is that if you deny evil, in this case Satan, you deny good, in this case God. Indeed, good and evil are dependent upon one another for survival because if there is no such concept as good, then how can you make the judgement that something is evil without having the frame of reference of goodness, and vice versa?

You would hold the power of good and evil over us to enslave us to your doctrine and, in doing so, enslave yourselves to your perpetual witch hunt. Humanity is neither good nor evil, but simply flawed.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7215/full/nature07189.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04639.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html

chessmaster1989

If we're on the subject of Tiktaalik -- I encourage you to read these links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0406fishin.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/missinglink.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/story-walking-fish

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/tiktaalik-fishy-fish

Thanks, I'll make sure to read them, under the condition that you read the links I have given to Crush :).

I've already read the first and the last link. I'm half way through the second. :)

Evolution is not chance. A creatures ability to adapt to it's environment via mutations in their DNA is a real world phenomenon and has been witnessed countless times. Creatures do not 'lose genetic information' what they do do is change genetic information via mutations in their DNA. A switch of a base pair or a reorganization of that base pair causes mutations. Mutations such as those that change information int he creatures genome allowing them to digest plant matter, etc...BumFluff122

Woohoo!!! Yeah baby! I am ingored again! 8)

Gotta love it!

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Who wouldn't consider it bad?

BumFluff122

If you argument did not include what I just mentioned above then why bring it up when we are talking about evil deeds??? Teenaged

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Who wouldn't consider it bad?

BumFluff122

How about the idea that organisms that don't have the genes to effectively adapt die off and don't pass them into the next generation and, thus, threaten the survival of the species with those organisms that wouldn't make the grade in the environment they live in? The death of those who cannot adapt allow others in the species to survive, reproduce, and evolve.

Woohoo!!! Yeah baby! I am ingored again! 8)

Gotta love it!

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]I don't see how that's a mutation.Zagrius

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"] But according to evolution it is a factor which has caused us to develop into the marvelous species that we are today -- wouldn't that qualify it as a good thing? tycoonmike

How about the idea that organisms that don't have the genes to effectively adapt die off and don't pass them into the next generation and, thus, threaten the survival of the species with those organisms that wouldn't make the grade in the environment they live in? The death of those who cannot adapt allow others in the species to survive, reproduce, and evolve.

Alot of this can be reasoned out using simple reductionism. Assuming there are a few key points agreed on. Most creationists accept the existance of genes (afterall we've mapped specific genes and can pick and pry them as we please), so with this one agreed upon point we can ask some questions expecting answers from both sides.

If we're created, and no evolution is possible, or even necessary, then what purpose does the gene have? You could argue, it's so that your kids bear a resemblance to one yourself. Then why give other animals genes and in many cases the same genes? Why allow for recessive genes responible for cancer and disease to exist? Why allow genes to be manipulated? Why are they identifiable at all?

The main underlying question being, what better purpose could genes exist for than the replication and preservation of the genes themselves (evolution)? And what better purpose can an animal (or a man, for you creationists) exist for than the preservation of it's own life and, uniquely in man, the pursuit of it's own happiness.

If a more rational (not mystical or agnostic) answer from creationism for any of those questions arrises, I would research and consider it based on the information and past experience I have obtained (bias). Ahhhh, but there are so many questions like these with a ready answer: evolution. Why should I submit my obvious pretense for logic and reason for the blurry haze of non absolutes that is mysticism.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Woohoo!!! Yeah baby! I am ingored again! 8)

Gotta love it!

Crushmaster

Alot of this can be reasoned out using simple reductionism. Assuming there are a few key points agreed on. Most creationists accept the existance of genes (afterall we've mapped specific genes and can pick and pry them as we please), so with this one agreed upon point we can ask some questions expecting answers from both sides.

If we're created, and no evolution is possible, or even necessary, then what purpose does the gene have? You could argue, it's so that your kids bear a resemblance to one yourself. Then why give other animals genes and in many cases the same genes? Why allow for recessive genes responible for cancer and disease to exist? Why allow genes to be manipulated? Why are they identifiable at all?

The main underlying question being, what better purpose could genes exist for than the replication and preservation of the genes themselves (evolution)? And what better purpose can an animal (or a man, for you creationists) exist for than the preservation of it's own life and, uniquely in man, the pursuit of it's own happiness.

If a more rational (not mystical or agnostic) answer from creationism for any of those questions arrises, I would research and consider it based on the information and past experience I have obtained (bias). Ahhhh, but there are so many questions like these with a ready answer: evolution. Why should I submit my obvious pretense for logic and reason for the blurry haze of non absolutes that is mysticism. Packt

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"] Evolution is not chance. A creatures ability to adapt to it's environment via mutations in their DNA is a real world phenomenon and has been witnessed countless times. Creatures do not 'lose genetic information' what they do do is change genetic information via mutations in their DNA. A switch of a base pair or a reorganization of that base pair causes mutations. Mutations such as those that change information int he creatures genome allowing them to digest plant matter, etc...Crushmaster

There are also mutations occuring in your DNA constantly. There are actually a certain type of white blood cell that is released to rid the body of these mutated cells because it happens so often. However, as evidenced by certain cancers, it is not exactly 100% effective. I stated before in another forum it would be interesting to knwo the probability of the beneficial mutations to the total number of mutations occuring in a species. I'm sure that as soon as you see these numbers you will change your mind on the 'chance' aspect of evolution and label it as more of a 'probability'.

If you understood how evolution occurs you would realize it is not chance. Evolution does not refer to the original mutation. Rather it refers to how those mutations are used by the individual to adapt to their environment. Again this is a real world phenomenon. Natural selection is not chance. Gene flow is due to chance. But again you would have to understand it to know why it is due to chance. Say there are 3 green bugs and 3 yellow bugs on the ground. The yellow bugs have a mutation in one of their genes that seperates them from greens. Now say someone went and stepped on two of the ywllow bugs. There would then be 3 green bugs and 1 yellow bug left. That is gene flow and that is what is due to chance. However natural selection in no way is chance.

There are also mutations occuring in your DNA constantly. There are actually a certain type of white blood cell that is released to rid the body of these mutated cells because it happens so often. However, as evidenced by certain cancers, it is not exactly 100% effective. I stated before in another forum it would be interesting to knwo the probability of the beneficial mutations to the total number of mutations occuring in a species. I'm sure that as soon as you see these numbers you will change your mind on the 'chance' aspect of evolution and label it as more of a 'probability'. BumFluff122

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"] But according to evolution it is a factor which has caused us to develop into the marvelous species that we are today -- wouldn't that qualify it as a good thing? Lansdowne5

Natural selection is not chance. Gene flow is due to chance. But again you would have to understand it to know why it is due to chance. Say there are 3 green bugs and 3 yellow bugs on the ground. The yellow bugs have a mutation in one of their genes that seperates them from greens. Now say someone went and stepped on two of the ywllow bugs. There would then be 3 green bugs and 1 yellow bug left. That is gene flow and that is what is due to chance. However natural selection in no way is chance.

BumFluff122

How about the idea that organisms that don't have the genes to effectively adapt die off and don't pass them into the next generation and, thus, threaten the survival of the species with those organisms that wouldn't make the grade in the environment they live in? The death of those who cannot adapt allow others in the species to survive, reproduce, and evolve.

tycoonmike

I seriously doubt it.

All you seem to be able to say is "if you understood this..."

If no intelligence is involved, it must be chance, correct?

Crushmaster

Crushmaster, have you read Darwin's original work on domestication of dogs and pigeons? Just curious how you would explain animal domestication and selective breeding. I am honestly curious, so you don't have to create a few second snappy response. Just tell me what you know.

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"] Evolution is not chance. A creatures ability to adapt to it's environment via mutations in their DNA is a real world phenomenon and has been witnessed countless times. Creatures do not 'lose genetic information' what they do do is change genetic information via mutations in their DNA. A switch of a base pair or a reorganization of that base pair causes mutations. Mutations such as those that change information int he creatures genome allowing them to digest plant matter, etc...BumFluff122

There are also mutations occuring in your DNA constantly. There are actually a certain type of white blood cell that is released to rid the body of these mutated cells because it happens so often. However, as evidenced by certain cancers, it is not exactly 100% effective. I stated before in another forum it would be interesting to knwo the probability of the beneficial mutations to the total number of mutations occuring in a species. I'm sure that as soon as you see these numbers you will change your mind on the 'chance' aspect of evolution and label it as more of a 'probability'.

Evolution relies just as much on chance as it does on natural selection. There are too many variables, which are not just limited to terrestrial variables, to say that evolution isn't, in some way, impacted in a major way by chance. Say, for instance, the cataclysm that befell the dinosaurs didn't occur. Do you honestly think that we'd be living in the Flinstone's world of dinosaur pack mules? Or, for instance, Earth didn't have a moon. What would happen to our oceans and the creatures that reside in it?

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

How about the idea that organisms that don't have the genes to effectively adapt die off and don't pass them into the next generation and, thus, threaten the survival of the species with those organisms that wouldn't make the grade in the environment they live in? The death of those who cannot adapt allow others in the species to survive, reproduce, and evolve.

BumFluff122

:| I'm not talking about a "threat" of death, I'm talking about those organisms that cannot adapt actually dying and, in doing so, allowing organisms that can and have adapted to pass on the genes required for survival in that area. In that way, death is a major evolutionary function.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

Natural selection is not chance. Gene flow is due to chance. But again you would have to understand it to know why it is due to chance. Say there are 3 green bugs and 3 yellow bugs on the ground. The yellow bugs have a mutation in one of their genes that seperates them from greens. Now say someone went and stepped on two of the ywllow bugs. There would then be 3 green bugs and 1 yellow bug left. That is gene flow and that is what is due to chance. However natural selection in no way is chance.

Lansdowne5

Crushmaster, have you read Darwin's original work on domestication of dogs and pigeons? Just curious how you would explain animal domestication and selective breeding. I am honestly curious, so you don't have to create a few second snappy response. Just tell me what you know.Packt

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Where exactly does evolution state that deaht is a factor in creating what we are today? Death has nothing to do with evolution.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="Teenaged"] If you argument did not include what I just mentioned above then why bring it up when we are talking about evil deeds??? Crushmaster

Evolution relies just as much on chance as it does on natural selection. There are too many variables, which are not just limited to terrestrial variables, to say that evolution isn't, in some way, impacted in a major way by chance. Say, for instance, the cataclysm that befell the dinosaurs didn't occur. Do you honestly think that we'd be living in the Flinstone's world of dinosaur pack mules? Or, for instance, Earth didn't have a moon. What would happen to our oceans and the creatures that reside in it?

tycoonmike

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Woohoo!!! Yeah baby! I am ingored again! 8)

Gotta love it!

Lansdowne5

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Woohoo!!! Yeah baby! I am ingored again! 8)

Gotta love it!

Crushmaster

I was mostly talking about Lans who asked a question I answered and yes lets see, I was ignored.

So thinking is a deed? Teenaged

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

Natural selection is not chance. Gene flow is due to chance. But again you would have to understand it to know why it is due to chance. Say there are 3 green bugs and 3 yellow bugs on the ground. The yellow bugs have a mutation in one of their genes that seperates them from greens. Now say someone went and stepped on two of the ywllow bugs. There would then be 3 green bugs and 1 yellow bug left. That is gene flow and that is what is due to chance. However natural selection in no way is chance.

BumFluff122

Can you provide some evidence of this?Crushmaster

Okay.

Antiobiotic Resistance result of mutation: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/176/1/143

Nylon-digestion result of mutation: http://www.pnas.org/content/81/8/2421.long

The first is just an abstract, but the relevant information is there.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Evolution relies just as much on chance as it does on natural selection. There are too many variables, which are not just limited to terrestrial variables, to say that evolution isn't, in some way, impacted in a major way by chance. Say, for instance, the cataclysm that befell the dinosaurs didn't occur. Do you honestly think that we'd be living in the Flinstone's world of dinosaur pack mules? Or, for instance, Earth didn't have a moon. What would happen to our oceans and the creatures that reside in it?

BumFluff122

:| I didn't say it did. What I'm saying is that both sides are wrong when they say that it is only by chance or only by natural selection that evolution works. It is the sum total of all variables and mutations that can make one species go extinct and another rise to be dominant over all others.

I know a made a vlaid point. I didnt expect you to respond. ;)

I was mostly talking about Lans who asked a question I answered and yes lets see, I was ignored. Teenaged

:| I'm not talking about a "threat" of death, I'm talking about those organisms that cannot adapt actually dying and, in doing so, allowing organisms that can and have adapted to pass on the genes required for survival in that area. In that way, death is a major evolutionary function.

tycoonmike

[QUOTE="Packt"] Crushmaster, have you read Darwin's original work on domestication of dogs and pigeons? Just curious how you would explain animal domestication and selective breeding. I am honestly curious, so you don't have to create a few second snappy response. Just tell me what you know.Crushmaster

Well, maybe you should start there for some answers. I've done my part and read the damned bible in it's many incarnations. How can you expect to form a rational self-bias if you haven't even read the fundamental source material. How can you expect anyone to want to debate with you?

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
I didn't think there was any need for me to respond to your most recent post.

Teenaged