Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    no i diddnt firstly vitamortis said the quran did not have any scientific information, then we had people, infact a whole page dedicated to the science of clouds. So no i diddnt. I just ended it
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkTitan)
    You know even in university lecturers who are far far more knowledgeable than us in TSR say its a theory and not fact. Which means it is open to challenges and such. What if we are missing something here? What we think was genetic mutation could have been something else?

    Just because some people read a text book they might think what they read is fact. Well what happens when the next revised edition comes out and new discoveries force the removal of the previous understanding. How comes normal people accept it without a challenge? Weren't you so sure about the theory before? Think for your selves and not have blind faith in a text book.
    What are you talking about? I am willing to bet 90% of TSRians believe evolution is a theory and fact the same way gravity is a theory and fact. No one has blind faith in a text book. The text book explains it to us. It's been verified. Do you verify everything your doctor diagnosis you with? I am willing to bet you don't.

    (Original post by DarkTitan)
    Actually it does...more so supporting the theory of the big bang. You haven't read the Quran by the looks of it so I don't think your in the position of saying nothing is said of the origins of the universe.
    Also stating the earth is egg shaped. Imagine someone saying that 1400+ years ago and to even go further in saying it resembles an ostrich egg.
    Wrong. The earth isn't egg shaped. Muslims are starting to debunk it because they realise Dr Zakir naik was wrong. The three most trusted translations say:

    And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse); (Yusuf Ali)
    And after that He spread the earth, (Pickthall)
    And the earth, He expanded it after that. (Shakir)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkTitan)
    no i diddnt firstly vitamortis said the quran did not have any scientific information, then we had people, infact a whole page dedicated to the science of clouds. So no i diddnt. I just ended it
    Again, can't you read. Vitamortis replied to this:


    "What does the Quran say about the origin of the universe that is noteworthy?"

    Quran mentioning big bang which it doesn't, isn't noteworthy. It hasn't contributed in any way to the big bang theory. Ergo, it isn't noteworthy. Me saying evolution isn't noteworthy regarding evolution.

    (Original post by DarkTitan)
    As these ancient civilizations whom did produce some degree of scientific hypothesis,
    Again, no. The earth flat theory wasn't ever a scientific hypothesis. Also, you do know that it was these ancient civilizations (Greeks) that showed us that the earth wasn't flat? Me saying the earth was created by aliens isn't a scientific hypothesis, the correct terminology is '********'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    What are you talking about? I am willing to bet 90% of TSRians believe evolution is a theory and fact the same way gravity is a theory and fact.
    Im not going to argue my case if the Quran contains scientific information or not. Make a thread about it and if your lucky I might post on it.

    On topic now-

    Gravity IS a theory which we know IS there and how it works, hence it is fact...Do we know how evolution works...all the nitty gritty bits of it?...No? then its not fact its a highly regarded theory. End of, no matter how much you argue for it if you dont know how it works fully and the foundations of its working are not set etc blah blah...its not fact.
    If its fact tell me what came first, prokaryotic or eukaryotic? And make sure its fact not evidence that prokaryote fossils date 3.5mill or something and eukaryote fossils after that so it must mean there were no eukaryotes before, because last time i checked the symbiotic theory was just that.

    No tell me which came first and how the other one came after that or more so how evolution took its part in the transition from one to another. Not ... random genitic mutation did it.
    I know the most sensible answer is prokaryotes came before eukaryotes...but prove it and make it fact.
    If we know how evolution works PROPERLY, then we can determine and make it fact which one came first and how the transition form one to the other took place.

    That's my view on evolution. Unless it can be explained fully in how it works it will not be fact. Even though I may agree with evolution I want to know HOW it works and remove the impurities in its theory. The only way I can do that, is if I QUESTION it.

    The reason why I'm saying this is so that you can recognise that i'm not either for or against. I can be both, as long as it brings me closer to a better understanding/knowledge. And that is done by constructive debates. Maybe it may help in debating that I am studying my first year of Biochemistry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkTitan)
    The eukaryotic cell is very advanced, its in perfect harmony...more or less with its organelles.

    In the case of a prokaryotic cell engulfing a mitochondrion, the host cell would have to incorperate the design of the mitochondrion with its own etc (DNA mixing in the right order) in a short space of time for the next offspring to also have a mitochondrion. Quite simply this cannot happen over a large amount of time, as the mitochondrion would have been disposed of within the first moment...The cell originially engulfed the mitochondron for energy...so why (more so how) would it change its mind and keep it?

    You also know that mutated DNA has to also make sense for it to be functional. One wrong sequence and that's it it wont make sense, which is mostly the case in probably 99.9999999999% of cases.

    To maintain a symbiotic relationship the host cell would have to allow oxygen into the cell for the mitochondrion to use in order to use the energy produced by the mitochondrion. How would a cell...which doesn't even know what to do with a mitochondron (not included within its own DNA) instantly know what to do with it and how to make use of it?

    There is no chance of mutation and such being of use...with the increasing number of cancer victims over the years, have you seen it being of use to the person? Nope.

    Evolution would make sense once everything is all put together (though its not so much evolution anymore its just varience).

    There was this lake forgot its name, somewhere in kenya where 3000+ fossils were found covering millions of years. And if I remember correctly the article showed consistency for long stretches of time and then suddenly within thousands of years changes in the species. Now I don't accurately remember what the correct wording was but from when I read that it seemed to challenge the slow process from one to another, rather it happened suddenly. It would seem to suggest genetic mutation, but to utilize a genetic mutation to a point where it benifits an organism it would take a long amount of time, which is not what was suggested by the findings.

    Don't like the word "chance" everything happens for a reason and a reason for why it happened, even wrong duplication of DNA is not chance. Its easy to say oh DNA mutation this DNA mutation that...in practice this is very different and much more complex that what people make it sound.
    You know even in university lecturers who are far far more knowledgeable than us in TSR say its a theory and not fact. Which means it is open to challenges and such. What if we are missing something here? What we think was genetic mutation could have been something else?

    Just because some people read a text book they might think what they read is fact. Well what happens when the next revised edition comes out and new discoveries force the removal of the previous understanding. How comes normal people accept it without a challenge? Weren't you so sure about the theory before? Think for your selves and not have blind faith in a text book.

    E.coli is about 3 microns. With 4.6 million base pairs in DNA in its chromosome. What are the chances a genetic mutation would occur in its 1000 base pair copying speed per second AND be of benefit. That's re-arranging 3 pairs or by deleting, missing one or what ever. 3/4.6 million and it has to be in the right place. Someone do the maths cos it aint gnna be me


    DINNER TIME!!!!
    Right:
    Disproving the mitochondrion symbiotic theory doesn't disprove evolution-it may well have evolved much like other organelles. If it did develop symbiosis, it would enter the cell much like a bacteria [bear in mind that this is the ancestor of mitochondria, and as such was more independent.] There is no need for the 'host cell' to 'know how to use' the mitochondria if it enters the cell by what is easiest to call free will. Modern bacteria invading a host are not destroyed because of defensive mechanisms like capsules, mitochondria may well have entered by the same means. If many mitochondria are able to enter cells, those that are better able to feed from nutrients in cell cytoplasm are more likely to survive. Working in symbiosis with the cell turned out to be the most effective way to do so. In this case you needed to look the other way around and consider whether it is the mitochondria taking advantage, not the cell.

    The cancer thing has an obvious answer: Genes that help you survive cancer don't benefit because you will have already have had children by then. If the gene helps you to have children, it doesn't matter if it screws you over in old age-it will still beat other alleles in the gene pool.

    Not all evolution is natural selection, genetic drift is a part of it.

    Large changes can happen in evolution thanks to processes such as inversion. Even a single gene can make a large change, because one gene can have many effects. Find out about the Evolutionarily stable strategy [ESS] for more details.Look at breeding animals as an example of selection pressure, forcing rapid change. If there is severe predation/disease ect, evolution will be much faster.

    Genetic mutation has been observed in obvious cases, someone already has mentioned one in which bacteria learned to consume an entirely different food that none of the tens of thousands of generations before it could make any use of at all.

    As for 'having to be in the right place', one gene in one place can make changes all over the body. The reason mutation is rare is that DNA beat other replicators in the primordial soup because better replicating fidelity gives them the edge. Even DNA is not perfect, which is evident in the very occasional mutations. You don't needs millions of animals to have the same mutation-a few will gradually spread because of the advantage it grants them. One thing you are right about is that most mutations are deleterious-swapping a few words in a book with random alternatives is only occasionally going to make it read better!

    Hopefully that made a bit of sense

    Edit: And yes, evolution isn't quite a fact like 10/2=5 is a fact, but as a theory it is backed by an absolutely overwhelming mountain of evidence. No other ideas come close to evolution for explaining everything from animal populations to complex organs to surprising things like the recurrent laryngeal nerve in it's stride. Evolution has changed over the years, but the core ideas are the same.
    Offline

    14
    The OP's approach is illuminating. Rather than looking at the science and coming to a conclusion, they seem to already have a conclusion - one that they got from their religious upbringing - and are grasping around for some scientific-sounding argument that they try to use to justify the conclusion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkTitan)
    Gravity IS a theory which we know IS there and how it works, hence it is fact...
    No we don't (I am not talking about objects falling etc). You can't prove it, ergo it isn't a fact (read this to understand where I am coming from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...act#Evolution). Evolution and Gravity are scientfic facts though.

    "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

    "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change."
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Wcap)
    How does that very short, vague and ambiguous sentence point to the Big Bang?
    It does not point to anything. People interpreting a vague sentence such as that, and applying it to the big bang theory, is very similar to a schizophrenic viewing a 'JHR4 JWE' number plate, and seeing 'you are the Lord, Jesus Christ'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ramses II)
    There is no need for the 'host cell' to 'know how to use' the mitochondria if it enters the cell by what is easiest to call free will. Modern bacteria invading a host are not destroyed because of defensive mechanisms like capsules, mitochondria may well have entered by the same means. If many mitochondria are able to enter cells, those that are better able to feed from nutrients in cell cytoplasm are more likely to survive. Working in symbiosis with the cell turned out to be the most effective way to do so. In this case you needed to look the other way around and consider whether it is the mitochondria taking advantage, not the cell.
    Aah I see, I was always looking where the host would engulf the primitive mitochondrion and have to account for it :facepalm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vitamortis)
    It does not point to anything. People interpreting a vague sentence such as that, and applying it to the big bang theory, is very similar to a schizophrenic viewing a 'JHR4 JWE' number plate, and seeing 'you are the Lord, Jesus Christ'.
    Well said. They are basically engaged in what I have heard some call imaginative interpretation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    Thread starter is using science to prove evolution wrong, his argument is not to prove the existance of God. His logic is not flawed, the fact that your response is on your own interpretations of his debate is in fact flawed. Also when you say that cell evolution is already heavily documented then show me. And did you know that no scientiest to date has proven or demonstrated a single case of genetic mutation in any living creature! not even Richard Dawkins.
    1. He's not "using science", he's using an argument from incredulity. Not the same thing. It seems to me that because he doesn't understand every single intricacy about evolution, he sees it as wrong.

    2. Your idea that "no scientist has proven..." etc is just a joke. We've observed it in bacterium such as e.coli, which evolved to become resistant to our antibiotics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkTitan)
    Actually it does...more so supporting the theory of the big bang. You haven't read the Quran by the looks of it so I don't think your in the position of saying nothing is said of the origins of the universe.
    Also stating the earth is egg shaped. Imagine someone saying that 1400+ years ago and to even go further in saying it resembles an ostrich egg.
    The stuff in the Qu'ran vaguely is similar to the idea of the Big Bang. That everything was one, and now its expanding. The kabala said the same thing thousands of year before hand.

    And if you went to someone and said the earth was round in greece in the BC's, they would go "Well yeah, no ****. We can tell you how big it is too."


    I cant explain the evolution theory using examples. But I can explain the basics.

    Things became more and more complicated. Eventually a small chain of amino acids became the animals and plants we see today. It appears that chemistry naturally forms compounds which form life. Pointing out that a human cell is complicated does not disprove evolution, all it does is just show how complicated the life formed is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    Although your theoretically correct, you should know the difference between genetic mutation and adaptation to the environment. The DNA of todays Giraffe is the same as its ancestor, the DNA of the human is the same as its ancestor. The theory of evolution is just a theory, its not proven and never will be.
    Your lack of intelligence and knowledge regarding scientific practice makes any points you make inconsequential.

    NOTHING is provable in science. It is impossible to prove a theory 100%. Only mathematical theories can be proven 100% correct. So stop using the pathetic "but it's just a theory" jibe, because you misunderstand the usage of"theory" in this context.

    "Theory" in the scientific sense is a highly respected level for an idea to get to. It is an idea that has risen above the sense of "hypothesis", has been proven by extensive testing and is the BEST way in which we can make sense of what we observe. It's not just Charles Darwin waking up one day and thinking "Evolution!". If you say, "There's a purple elephant in my bedroom closet which noone else can see", that's not a theory. That's just ********.

    So stop using the word "theory" out of context.

    I'm sorry if I sound impatient, but, in my defence, you're very ignorant regarding scientific method.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hantheman)
    Gravity is still a theory, yet no-one debates it. electricity is a theory, again we take it for granted. However, evolution which just so happens to be the most prominent piece of evidence which undermines thousands of years of hate and segregation caused by religion causes uproar amongst those who have spent their entire life living by millennia year old book which every time someone disagrees with it gets socially segregated or murdered.

    I'm bored of religion now, can we please just shoot it in the head and let people love and live without worrying about what happens after?
    Great post. If evolution didn't contradict religion, which happens to be nice to believe, noone would discuss it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    funny how utter tripe can generate a 7 page thread.
    To me that seems very TSRian....:dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    Great post. If evolution didn't contradict religion, which happens to be nice to believe, noone would discuss it.
    :ditto:

    Religion is so backward that if, for example, the Quran said that men have ten testicles, Muslims would believe it and furiously oppose scientists who say otherwise.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    i.e evolution is simply a belief, it is not based upon concrete evidence. the reason why it seems to be widely accepted by the common man is simply because they are 'told so', not 1 person in this very forum has been able to dissprove evolution as wrong - most have dismissed this argument with some level of insult or abuse and failed to give any scientific facts, these comments are worthless paraphrases which they should go away and reflect upon.
    :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: And the only bloody reason you believe your religious beliefs is because it's nice to believe-or because your parents have told you so. A debate is all well and good, but to suggest that the most influential theory of our era is not based on concrete scientific evidence is very worrying.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wcap)
    :ditto:

    Religion is so backward that if, for example, the Quran said that men have ten testicles, Muslims would believe it and furiously oppose scientists who say otherwise.
    Or say that there's scientific evidence in the Qu'ran which consists of nothing more than a couple of ambiguous sentences that could be twisted and contorted to fit a million different things if need be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wcap)
    :ditto:

    Religion is so backward that if, for example, the Quran said that men have ten testicles, Muslims would believe it and furiously oppose scientists who say otherwise.
    You mean you're not supposed to have ten testicles??

    :o:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    THE SCIENCE OF CLOUDSS!!!!!!!11111111111
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    The level of scientific illiteracy on this thread is worrying.
    That's exactly what I was thinking....
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,174

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.