Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Using science to prove evolution wrong watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    (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.
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=examples+of+genetic+mutations
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Good point, but there is one mistake i can immediatley see. A mutation is a random brekage in the DNA. It is when DNA malforms. How could the DNA mal form to such an extent, that the neck grew longer and longer? This malformation would have to have happened to another female species of many other giraffes to be passed on. How can the same random breakage and mutation occour time and time again? It's not possible.

    Also, why can't we see other organisms with long necks? If it is true that organisms with long necks survived, why don't we see ' evolution/mutation' producing other organisms? There are many many tall trees. Also, by the way, the giraffes neck is more than tall enough to reach tree's. Why didn't it stop ?

    Answer the first questions, then come to the last one. Thanks, good point by the way. This is how i wanted the debate to go. Simple examples.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

    You may find this intresting as to how something like an eye can be created through evolution
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you could prove evolution wrong, you'd already have won a Nobel prize. I'll keep BBC news open.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Good point, but there is one mistake i can immediatley see. A mutation is a random brekage in the DNA. It is when DNA malforms. How could the DNA mal form to such an extent, that the neck grew longer and longer?
    There will be gene(s) that help determine the neck length of the giraffe. A mutation in those genes may make them work differently; the mutation changes their genetic structure, and that may change the effect they have no the neck length. Usually it makes it work differently in such a way as to cause a disadvantage to the organism. But occasionally, it provides an advantage to the organism. So there will be cases of a messed-up neck - in which case, the giraffe will not be as likely to survive - but there will also be some cases where the neck is longer. That may give the giraffe an advantage, and hence make it more likely to be sexually successful.

    (Original post by sixthformer)
    This malformation would have to have happened to another female species of many other giraffes to be passed on.
    That doesn't make sense. If one individual possesses a mutation that increases neck length then they can pass it on through sexual reproduction.

    (Original post by sixthformer)
    How can the same random breakage and mutation occour time and time again? It's not possible.
    Again, you aren't very clear. Why would "the same random breakage" be occurring? (What does that even mean?) Suppose we have giraffe genome A, giraffe genome B, and giraffe genome C. If a mutation (which is going to be a switch, insertion or deletion) turns genome A into B, then it doesn't make sense to say that the same mutation is occurring to turn B into C, for B is different from A and hence acting on B will lead to a different result (a result that may or may not be advantageous) from acting on A.

    In other words, applying the same process over and over again isn't going to increase the neck length by 1cm every time. It doesn't work like that. (And there are clearly cases where it doesn't make sense. e.g. If a mutation deletes something in the genome, the same process again won't delete it again, for what we deleted is no longer there!) Rather, different types of mutations lead to different changes in the genome, but different types of changes can lead to an overall similar result which turns out to be, say, an increase in neck length.

    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Also, why can't we see other organisms with long necks? If it is true that organisms with long necks survived, why don't we see ' evolution/mutation' producing other organisms? There are many many tall trees. Also, by the way, the giraffes neck is more than tall enough to reach tree's. Why didn't it stop ?
    Perhaps the answer is that the long necks of giraffes are not for reaching tall trees, and instead the long, strong necks are a way securing mating rights with females. See: http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes...ingByANeck.pdf
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    When does one cell go to itself, you know what I need a nuclear envelope, and for what purpose? Ok it happens step by step, by mutation...accidently. What use would a fraction of a nuclear envelope be to a prokaryotic cell in its survival of the fittest test? (Also I doubt a mutation would build a full nuclear envelope even chemically...for what purpose? How would the cell even utilize the uses of the envelope unless the whole package is there).
    Especially in the case of the red blood cell. The question would be when did that particular cell start being a team player and decide it will loose its nucleus in order for it to preform its specific task of carrying oxygen around the body so that the mitochondria can use the oxygen. I thought the aim was for the cells...individually to live...survive. But in this case the red blood cells just praticially sacrificed themselves to live for 120 days.

    Also you would think that at this time point of evolution, we would continue on living and not die? Evolution is survival of the fittest right? How comes we don't see people living over 200? With genetic mutations etc, wouldn't the body have figured out, well the heart beats and works a hell of alot...lets build another one and replace it after a certain amount of time so that I can continue on living? And lets make a copy of the brain and retain 'memories' should it become damaged. If cells have become soo specialised at this point in time in order to preform their task, why does our body fail at times? Yes DNA is prone to go bonkers after replicating itself millions of times...but why hasn't it been perfected yet? For evolution to occur? Think cancer...NTY
    Also the immune system why hasn't that been perfected?

    The whole topic is extremely difficult to understand no matter how much someone may know about it. The fact that I can even 'think' is amazing, because...at the end of the day...I am only atoms and electrons. For every answer answered by science, there probably 10 more questions.
    The concept of Evolution does make sense, but to me its way to complicated for a mutation during mitosis to just happen to be the right one leading to a series of mutations leading to an organ. And then how would one organ (primitive) know what the other needs. Could it be chemical changes happened...intentionally? And not just luck of the draw?

    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

    It's not as easy as saying "God did it" for those who believe. But more so how did it happen?...I'm sure everyone can agree on that, be it atheist or believer.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by DarkTitan)
    Evolution is survival of the fittest right?
    Evolution is not survival of the fittest - that is a synonym coined by Herbert Spencer, but is misunderstood. Evolution by means of natural selection is rather the reproduction of the fittest. 'Fittest' - in this sense - rarely means biggest, fastest or strongest, but is rather attributed to best camouflaged, most intelligent or most cooperative within a given group (and many other attributes). The aim is not survival; it is reproduction. Cooperation breeds more success within a defined species, than every individual for themselves.

    The concept of Evolution does make sense, but to me its way to complicated for a mutation during mitosis to just happen to be the right one leading to a series of mutations leading to an organ. And then how would one organ (primitive) know what the other needs. Could it be chemical changes happened...intentionally? And not just luck of the draw?
    Mutations are seldom advantageous; they are usually neutral, or disadvantageous. But they key point, is that if an advantageous mutation does occur, it will most probably give the individual(s) a better chance at reproduction, thus causing natural selection to take over. And after many, many generations, the population of that particular species, will have been adapted (by natural selection) as a result. If a disadvantageous mutation occurs, the individual of the given species, will most likely be killed off by natural selection before they have a chance to reproduce and cause a change or adaptation in the population.

    It has taken evolution millions of years to shape whole organ systems. It is impossible to think what can occur in that amount of time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vitamortis)
    Evolution is not survival of the fittest - that is a synonym coined by Herbert Spencer, but is misunderstood. Evolution by means of natural selection is rather the reproduction of the fittest. 'Fittest' - in this sense - rarely means biggest, fastest or strongest, but is rather attributed to best camouflaged, most intelligent or most cooperative within a given group (and many other attributes). The aim is not survival; it is reproduction. Cooperation breeds more success within a defined species, than every individual for themselves.
    Yes that is what I meant by survival of the fittest at the cellular level.
    Though I tend to disagree with the bit where you say the aim is not survival. Well if that's the case there would be more eukaryotes than prokaryotes now.
    Co-operation does lead to success but cells don't know that, so what was their reason for evolving and becoming more specialized, like with red blood cells, loosing their ability to reproduce all-together? It makes sense with co-operating and such but like you said, the aim was to reproduce, so why loose your ability to all together?
    Why not just stay the way they were 3.5 billion years ago and just reproduce like they always had and maybe be even more abundant than now.

    (Original post by vitamortis)
    Mutations are seldom advantageous; they are usually neutral, or disadvantageous. But they key point, is that if an advantageous mutation does occur, it will most probably give the individual(s) a better chance at reproduction, thus causing natural selection to take over. And after many, many generations, the population of that particular species, will have been adapted (by natural selection) as a result. If a disadvantageous mutation occurs, the individual of the given species, will most likely be killed off by natural selection before they have a chance to reproduce and cause a change or adaptation in the population.

    It has taken evolution millions of years to shape whole organ systems. It is impossible to think what can occur in that amount of time.
    That's all good and understandable in multicellular organisms in this day and age. But talking about the first living cells. How could they have utilized such mutations and or by engulfing others.

    What I mean is that in the case of a prokaryotic cell engulfing a mitochondrion, the cell would have to incorperate the design of the mitochondrion with its own etc (DNA mixing in the right order), into the next generation of cell for the next phase to begin I would imagine.
    It would be upto chance itself for the correct cell to engulf the correct type (again I would imagine there would have been many varieties of mitochondrion) and then for the next generation to incorporate the design aswell, which would require an updated DNA, (more or less in the right order, mutation would maybe correct it down the line but the main point is that the new DNA be able to produce the new mitochondrion as well to a certain degree of accuracy).

    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. The list goes on and on. I would imagine the figures involved by leaving things to chance for evolution to occur would in this case of the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote be sooo minute that it would be negligible.

    If it were as simple as mutation or changing it would have been fact how the prokaryote evolved into the eukaryote.



    The point I'm trying to make is that it's not impossible to determine what happened millions of years ago. The big bang theory was based on a time even further than this, finding a reasonable and strongly supported theory for the origins of the universe was possible. So why can't this? (What I mean by why can't this, is that, its fact now I believe, that the big bang did happen (mainly creationists reject it right?) and how it happened etc time took etc. Likewise the same could be for the evolution theory).

    Also just another thought. If humans did evolve from apes. Why were pigs organs used in transplants and not the apes, If we are more related to apes shouldn't the heart of an ape be a more suitable candidate than a swine surely? Swines have something like 19 pairs no? and apes 24, humans 23...apes surely would be the logical organ to go for?

    Sorry if I make things sound confusing, was the best way I could think about it at this time >.< lol
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkTitan)
    If humans did evolve from apes. Why were pigs organs used in transplants and not the apes
    The first point to make is that humans have not evolved from apes; they have evolved from some creature that is a common ancestor to both apes and humans.

    Secondly, the likely use of genetically-modified pig organs for future transplant into humans is nothing to do with the number of genes the species share. Rather, it is because of the similarity in the physiological make-up of the two species and because they get many of the same diseases, such as diabetes. Patients who receive such organs would still have to take immune-suppressant drugs for the rest of their lives in order that their bodies do not reject the organs.

    In fact, chimpanzees would be a better bet for xenotransplantation, at least in terms of genetic similarity. However, the chimpanzee is an endangered species. Baboons would also be better, but they aren't a good fit in terms of body size. Non-human primates in general represent a high risk of disease transmission between donor and recipient precisely because they are so closely related to humans. Pigs are a better bet because they represent a lower risk of such cross-species transmission. In experiments, pig organs are donated to baboons.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    the DNA of the human is the same as its ancestor.
    Your scientific knowledge doesn't even match up to that of the average ten-year old, does it? Surely you are aware that no human has the same DNA as even its parent, never mind more remote ancestors?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    I shall use science in order to prove evolution wrong.

    Firstly, let me introduce to you the human cell.

    Argument 1 of many countless of others:

    The human cell is very complex.
    It contains a phospholid layer of cell membrane, and within this layer are proteins. These proteins range from intergrel proteins(channel proteins or ones that span across the membrane and have something to do with the transport of substances across the cell membrane.

    Now , inside this complicated cell are organelles. These are subunits which all work together, to enable the cell to perform the many life processes: movement, sensitivity, reproduction, respiration, excretion, and growth.

    Basically, how can such a complicated thing arise?

    How can glycoproteins and glycerolized contribute to the cell recognition? How could this arise? Yes, the hormone or target receptors have complimentary shapes, and or bind with the hormone or protein or chemical , and thus a response is trigged.

    My point IS. How can such a complex thing arise?

    DEBATE me.

    Let's keep this argument at a cellular/anatomical position.

    You can use other sciences though.
    Google: Endosymbiotic Theory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    OP
    Expected a reasonably well thought out, mildly educated point. Man was I disappointed, that was pure ignorance.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Comment on saying that tiny mutations would be needed to occour over millions of years for cell to form.

    But tell me this:

    Can you show me a single part in the current cell that could have been different?



    Name me any organelle. Tell me how it could have been different/worked differently, and how it evolved.

    Irreduceable complexity.

    Random mutations and MISTAKES in the genetic code cannot account for such a complex system.

    Heck, i don't even think we humans, withour brain power can create it all from the BASIC elements, INTENTIONALLlY
    What makes you so sure? :curious:

    I hate the idea that 'because it's so complicated, it can't have just been formed by chance'. That's a stupid argument and one which has no backbone.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The level of scientific illiteracy on this thread is worrying.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CityOfMyHeart)
    What makes you so sure?

    I hate the idea that 'because it's so complicated, it can't have just been formed by chance'. That's a stupid argument and one which has no backbone.
    Indeed. It begs the question 'what was it formed by?' and 'how was that forming agent created?'.

    Of course it also rests on the idea that evolution is chance, when it isn't. It isn't chance that things have survived because they are a better fit to the environment. As for the idea that mutations take a long time, mutations and changes occur all the time, most are dangerous, some are beneficial. Micro-evolution is observed regularly in the laboratory over a few days or weeks. We've had a few million years at least.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Your scientific knowledge doesn't even match up to that of the average ten-year old, does it? Surely you are aware that no human has the same DNA as even its parent, never mind more remote ancestors?
    lmao yes according to you my friend. the point i made is that there is a difference between genetic evolution and adaptation to the environment. i.e. Giraffes with longer necks is not due to a genetic mutation of its genomic coding, instead they have adapted to their environment over time. surely your aware of that?? my point is that genomic coding is the same in humans now, as it was in our ancestors. This has been proven by archeological scientists time and time again, no one as of yet can produce evidence of a single case of genetic mutation i.e. a distinct change/ malfunction/ omission in the make-up of DNA of any living organism. until this is has been proven, it is illogical to accept the theory of evolution not based on solid evidence, otherwise it remains a theory. i agree with it in theory but disagree with it based upon fact.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    lmao yes according to you my friend.
    Presumably you think you have the same DNA as both your father and mother then?

    As luck would have it TSR has provided two apt smilies to use in situations like this.

    :banghead: and :toofunny:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    There will be gene(s) that help determine the neck length of the giraffe. A mutation in those genes may make them work differently; the mutation changes their genetic structure, and that may change the effect they have no the neck length. Usually it makes it work differently in such a way as to cause a disadvantage to the organism. But occasionally, it provides an advantage to the organism. So there will be cases of a messed-up neck - in which case, the giraffe will not be as likely to survive - but there will also be some cases where the neck is longer. That may give the giraffe an advantage, and hence make it more likely to be sexually successful.

    That doesn't make sense. If one individual possesses a mutation that increases neck length then they can pass it on through sexual reproduction.

    Again, you aren't very clear. Why would "the same random breakage" be occurring? (What does that even mean?) Suppose we have giraffe genome A, giraffe genome B, and giraffe genome C. If a mutation (which is going to be a switch, insertion or deletion) turns genome A into B, then it doesn't make sense to say that the same mutation is occurring to turn B into C, for B is different from A and hence acting on B will lead to a different result (a result that may or may not be advantageous) from acting on A.

    In other words, applying the same process over and over again isn't going to increase the neck length by 1cm every time. It doesn't work like that. (And there are clearly cases where it doesn't make sense. e.g. If a mutation deletes something in the genome, the same process again won't delete it again, for what we deleted is no longer there!) Rather, different types of mutations lead to different changes in the genome, but different types of changes can lead to an overall similar result which turns out to be, say, an increase in neck length.

    Perhaps the answer is that the long necks of giraffes are not for reaching tall trees, and instead the long, strong necks are a way securing mating rights with females. See: http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes...ingByANeck.pdf
    One statement will proove the above wrong, although i feel it is the most logical post yet. If there is a gene to determine the size of the neck, and if this gene was so common that it caused millions of girafes, or say the few hundred or thousand that existed then, to all simulatneously grow longer necks, then why did it not A: occour in other animals, and B , if you say that other animals did not need longer necks because food could be reached on the ground, then why did the girafe not obtain food in this way? MIND well, a mutation is a random breakage and malformation in the genetic code.

    Suppose i accept(i don't) that mutations caused the neck to grow longer, do you know that there IS NOT ONE GENE to account for the neck? A giraffe has MANY MANY bones in it's neck. It's wrapped with muscle fibre, and so many other things. A simultaneous mutation in ALL OF THESE THINGS, would need to occur at the time time and in different giraffes.


    How also do you account for the body ALSO changing to account for a longer neck? The body/legs must also have mutated in order for this to occur? Genetics tells me that this makes little sense. Maths tells me that the probability is virtually impossible. Reasoning and judgement tells me it's rubbish.



    PS: they believed the atom was only a blob before. If you challenged that idea, you'd be classed as a lunatic.

    Science is open to debate. I'm no sheep.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Presumably you think you have the same DNA as both your father and mother then?

    As luck would have it TSR has provided two apt smilies to use in situations like this.

    :banghead: and :toofunny:
    explain
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    lmao yes according to you my friend. the point i made is that there is a difference between genetic evolution and adaptation to the environment. i.e. Giraffes with longer necks is not due to a genetic mutation of its genomic coding, instead they have adapted to their environment over time. surely your aware of that?? my point is that genomic coding is the same in humans now, as it was in our ancestors. This has been proven by archeological scientists time and time again, no one as of yet can produce evidence of a single case of genetic mutation i.e. a distinct change/ malfunction/ omission in the make-up of DNA of any living organism. until this is has been proven, it is illogical to accept the theory of evolution not based on solid evidence, otherwise it remains a theory. i agree with it in theory but disagree with it based upon fact.
    Ditto

    Exactly.

    It is ACCEPTED by evolutionists BECAUSE A. they do not believe in God, and if God (to them) does not exist, the only POSSIBLE WAY it could exist , is in a very very illogical method, known as evolution.

    THAT is why it is accepted. Not because IT CONTAINS DISTINCT PROOF.

    BUT BECAUSE! IT IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO NOT BELIEVING IN A CREATOR. No God means what? everything made itself- right or wrong?

    If you dismiss evolution, the only other explanation is a creator.

    Let's not discuss prooving the existance of God please, this is scientific, but i had to bring this up due to many comments.
    Offline

    2
    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.
    Someone already did one of those 'let me google that for you' things for your final comment, so I won't bother with that.

    The rest; This took me 5 seconds to google http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshel...ooper&part=A90

    And in terms of him not mentioning God, let's face it. Definitely a sub-current in what he was saying, wasn't it? If you don't believe in evolution, even though there is good fossil record to prove it... what are you adding in the middle? Spontaneous creation. Spontaneous creation indicates some form of deity.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.