Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    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 giraffe not obtain food in this way?
    It's all about cost:benefit. For a ground-feeder to develop huge necks is disproportionately infeasible in biological expense for that of the giraffe. Simply put, its much less likely to happen purely because of the already determined height differences. In addition, ground-feeders are more likely to have developed adaptive alternatives to meet their feeding requirements. If ALL the animals developed long necks, the competition for the food would still remain and the evolutionary drive for that gene would be nullified. The whole trend of evolution is diversity, not homogeneity.

    Not forgetting the fact that the giraffes neck is the result of sexual selection anyway.

    (Original post by sixthformer)
    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.
    Experimental studies in micro-evolution has shown examples of how adaptation can occur despite numerous genetic mutations being prerequisite. They would not need to be simultaneous. Look at the Lenski experiment for demonstration of this.

    (Original post by sixthformer)
    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.
    The genes that produce body/leg height are open to selection just as any other. They do not need to be selected simultaneously at the same evolutionary period as neck length. It is possible that such features are better accounted for in the context of the giraffes evolutionary history, for example. Also keep in mind that any genetic variation that is likely to be successful would not have been one where the giraffe suddenly gained six feet on their height. If this occured, the giraffe would likely die as the rest of their physiology had not been able to catch up. Genetic variation that drove the evolution of height would have been done in incredibly tiny increments so that required support physiology would also have been capable of adapting to its new biological expenditure.

    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    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.
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    Giraffes with longer necks is not due to a genetic mutation of its genomic coding, instead they have adapted to their environment over
    time.
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    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.
    We see you trollin'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    A giraffe has MANY MANY bones in it's neck.
    The giraffe doesn't have any more bones in its neck that the human, actually.

    I'm amazed, but entertained, that someone with so little scientific knowledge, even basic general knowledge, should want to argue against something that is agreed by essentially every reputable scientist in the world on the basiss of science. It is pretty much like a turkey coming along to argue that it won't get eaten at Christmas.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    You're not disproving evolution by what you have just said. You're just wondering, how could something so complex have come about JUST by evolution?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deathbeforeimmortality)
    You're not disproving evolution by what you have just said. You're just wondering, how could something so complex have come about JUST by evolution?
    This has already been pointed out to OP. They still fail to understand how a theory is disproved.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    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.
    So now we have your agenda revealed, and you haven't been able to stick to your own declaration about arguing on a scientific basis.

    Surely you know that most people who believe in (and understand) the theory of evolution are believers in a god, including both Christians and Moslems. People who believe in evolution do not do so because they don't believe in gods. In any event evolution has nothing at all to do with creation.

    Evolution is accepted by scientists because it is the only theory that fits all the available evidence - and there is a lot of evidence
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    It's all about cost:benefit. For a ground-feeder to develop huge necks is disproportionately infeasible in biological expense for that of the giraffe. Simply put, its much less likely to happen purely because of the already determined height differences. In addition, ground-feeders are more likely to have developed adaptive alternatives to meet their feeding requirements. If ALL the animals developed long necks, the competition for the food would still remain and the evolutionary drive for that gene would be nullified. The whole trend of evolution is diversity, not homogeneity.

    Not forgetting the fact that the giraffes neck is the result of sexual selection anyway.



    Experimental studies in micro-evolution has shown examples of how adaptation can occur despite numerous genetic mutations being prerequisite. They would not need to be simultaneous. Look at the Lenski experiment for demonstration of this.



    The genes that produce body/leg height are open to selection just as any other. They do not need to be selected simultaneously at the same evolutionary period as neck length. It is possible that such features are better accounted for in the context of the giraffes evolutionary history, for example. Also keep in mind that any genetic variation that is likely to be successful would not have been one where the giraffe suddenly gained six feet on their height. If this occured, the giraffe would likely die as the rest of their physiology had not been able to catch up. Genetic variation that drove the evolution of height would have been done in incredibly tiny increments so that required support physiology would also have been capable of adapting to its new biological expenditure.



    Why do we only find giraffes with long necks? I did not mean that all other animals also grow long necks. We have millions of species which could easily have had long necks like the giraffe. Why is it that the giraffe is the only organism with the distinctively long neck? Surely other organisms, if it worked in that mechanism, would also have grown long necks? So this one neck mutation ONLY occoured in a girafe, when there were possibly millions of other SPECIES of animals that could have also obtained this mutation?

    If you just popped in and are reading this part of the argument, search previous posts to see why the giraffe could not have obtained a long neck on a genetic level.

    PS: 99.9% of mutations are either useless, or harmful. The 0.1 percent is arguable. If all of creation/animals/all the species we see came from malformations of DNA, why are there not innumerable fossils of organisms dead due to genetic disorders. They are not that common.

    A--> If the giraffe needed a long neck, HOW did it survive before?
    B --> if the long neck only gave it a higher chance of survival, why don't we see other animals with long necks such as the giraffes? If it was such a benefit? Mind, i did not say ALL animals, i just said, one or two more, if the genetics/mechanism was THAT simple.


    PS: NOT TO YOU, BUT TO other posters saying i copy and paste, these are my own words...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    This has already been pointed out to OP. They still fail to understand how a theory is disproved.
    Just wanted to add my two cents

    OP's argument really has no legs to stand on. I just think it's more of an opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So now we have your agenda revealed, and you haven't been able to stick to your own declaration about arguing on a scientific basis.

    Surely you know that most people who believe in (and understand) the theory of evolution are believers in a god, including both Christians and Moslems. People who believe in evolution do not do so because they don't believe in gods. In any event evolution has nothing at all to do with creation.

    Evolution is accepted by scientists because it is the only theory that fits all the available evidence - and there is a lot of evidence
    One word: Richard Dawkins
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    The level of scientific illiteracy on this thread is worrying.
    This. Surely a lot of these people aren't being serious?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So now we have your agenda revealed, and you haven't been able to stick to your own declaration about arguing on a scientific basis.

    Surely you know that most people who believe in (and understand) the theory of evolution are believers in a god, including both Christians and Moslems. People who believe in evolution do not do so because they don't believe in gods. In any event evolution has nothing at all to do with creation.

    Evolution is accepted by scientists because it is the only theory that fits all the available evidence - and there is a lot of evidence
    Name me a single piece of evidence.
    Offline

    19
    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.
    So your line of argument is that evolution could not have occured because the eukaryotic cell is too complex?

    If anything, people tend to use the complexity of the eukaryotic cell to support evolution. The fact that human eukaryotic cells contain mitochondria and plant cells have chloroplasts, which have a different genetic sequence to our normal DNA indicates that they were once seperate organisms, which started to build a symbiotic relationship with other cells. On a molecular basis, it basically indicates that single cell organisms started to come together to become multicellular as they could get more energy this way.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    You could roll a thousand dice, only get a single "1" then rant on about how unlikely it is that none of the others have rolled a "1". Fact is, it can still happen.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Name me a single piece of evidence.
    Follow the link in my signature.

    One word: Richard Dawkins
    That is two words. Just because one famous proponent of evolution happens to be an atheist doesn't mean they all are. Anyway, mentioning the name of a famous atheist biologist doesn't establish a link between creation and evolution; mainly because there isn't one.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    So your line of argument is that evolution could not have occured because the eukaryotic cell is too complex?

    If anything, people tend to use the complexity of the eukaryotic cell to support evolution. The fact that human eukaryotic cells contain mitochondria and plant cells have chloroplasts, which have a different genetic sequence to our normal DNA indicates that they were once seperate organisms, which started to build a symbiotic relationship with other cells. On a molecular basis, it basically indicates that single cell organisms started to come together to become multicellular as they could get more energy this way.
    That is not my whole argument. It is a brief point that i have heavily expanded in the last five pages. No-one would read 10,000 words.

    Secondly - HOW can a cell be a cell and work WITHOUT mitochondria? It can't. How can a WHOLE organelle be allowed past the cell membrane? How can the DNA allow this to happen? The DNA CONTROLS everything. THE DNA MUST have mutated in a way that A is so unlikley, it is impossible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Follow the link in my signature.

    No, actually explain one little piece of evidence. Something we all can understand/tap in to.


    That is two words. Just because one famous proponent of evolution happens to be an atheist doesn't mean they all are. Anyway, mentioning the name of a famous atheist biologist doesn't establish a link between creation and evolution; mainly because there isn't one.
    I will withhold from answering this point. I want to keep this strictly scientific. Sorry if i appeared to side-track.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Irreducible complexity is a catastrophic failure.
    Your whole argument is essentially 'I don't understand how this could have happened, therefore it didn't!'
    Your logic is fundamentally flawed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    That is not my whole argument. It is a brief point that i have heavily expanded in the last five pages. No-one would read 10,000 words.

    Secondly - HOW can a cell be a cell and work WITHOUT mitochondria? It can't.
    A cell can survive without mitochondria. For instance, prokaryotic cells. :facepalm:

    (Original post by sixthformer)
    How can a WHOLE organelle be allowed past the cell membrane?
    Cells fuse together quite often actually. Bacteria do it all the time. The membrane isn't a solid rock, it's partially permeable.

    (Original post by sixthformer)
    How can the DNA allow this to happen? The DNA CONTROLS everything. THE DNA MUST have mutated in a way that A is so unlikley, it is impossible.
    Bacterial conjugation is the transfer of genetic material between bacterial cells. DNA only controls the genetic material of one cell, not everything.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haeron)
    Irreducible complexity is a catastrophic failure.
    Your whole argument is essentially 'I don't understand how this could have happened, therefore it didn't!'
    Your logic is fundamentally flawed.
    You've misunderstood me.
    I do not say i don't ' understand how' . My argument is that A is complex, and contains many sub-parts which, if they were different or not present, A would FAIL to work.

    As evolution is based on malformation of DNA or mutation, tell me how possibly, something LESS complex OR different to A could have existed?

    Name me an organelle that could not have been present?

    This is not my ONLY argument. It is a single one of many arguments. I have not even properly expanded on it in the first post. Read previous pages if you have time.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    A cell can survive without mitochondria. For instance, prokaryotic cells. :facepalm:

    i meant in a eukaryotic cell. I am aware that bacteria have mesosomes inwhich atp takes place.

    Cells fuse together quite often actually. Bacteria do it all the time. The membrane isn't a solid rock, it's partially permeable.

    I know it's partically permable , and contains a phospholid bi-layer, protein channels, receptor molecules, carrier proteins, aquapores and such.


    Bacterial conjugation is the transfer of genetic material between bacterial cells. DNA only controls the genetic material of one cell, not everything.

    This is when bacteria mutate/share DNA, to become resistant to medicines? But my question was, how can the DNA take into account a WHOLE mitocondria coming into the cell, how does it know when/were to send it's microtubles ect?

    You have not said how a mitochondria can survive by itself.

    there
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.