Raving Atheists Forum

Raving Atheists Forum (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/index.php)
-   Sciences (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Evolution: Gender Cannot Be Explained (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14637)

Missionary 07-01-2008 09:50 AM

Evolution: Gender Cannot Be Explained
 
No observable, testable, measurable, repeatable evidence exists to explain how male and female evolved from asexual organisms. Evolutionary biologists have been unable to determine the origin of sexual reproduction, sperm and egg, or a mechanism that might cause such a mutation.

That doesn't prevent the "Wonders of the Scientifically Fantastical" sci-fi stories from being spun. But still, not a shred or speck of hard scientific evidence.

Discuss.

Riddler 07-01-2008 09:56 AM

Have you checked into my 'Thou art with me. . .' thread under 'Does God Exist'?

If you can overlook the irreverence of the title (and you reveal yourself to be exceptionally good at overlooking irreverence, if I may say so!) you will find that the same subject is already under discussion there. I would value your informed input.

Missionary 07-01-2008 10:06 AM

Done!

zer0 07-01-2008 10:14 AM

SIGH... the very process that you're trying to disprove with your piss poor logic is the process that pretty much fucking ensured the rise of gender. Natural selection is not very kind to those that reproduce asexually. Getting past the limits of asexual reproduction was the first great hurdle of life on this planet. Asexual reproduction limits the genetic variability in a population, and is detrimental to its survival. The Cambrian explosion also coincides with many of the first sexually reproducing species arising. Sex was one of the most important mutations ever.

The above link is not specifically about asexual reproduction but it touches on why genetic variability is a huge boon to a species. It also shows why the story of Noah's Ark would pretty much mean we'd all be dead. The video is made by a Christian, so piss off. There are plenty of people that can reconcile their faith with the truth of science, the beauty of science. If you can't wrap your head around it, I pity you, but I don't forgive you nor do I have to accept your ignorant worldview. Get the fuck out of here with your piss poor understanding of even the most basic statements scientists have made in the past 150 years.

Today is July 1st, 2008. 150 years exactly since the work of Darwin and Wallace were first brought before the public eye. 150 years later, many have questioned it, many have tested it, and it has withstood every barrage. The theory of evolution is one the most sound, well-supported, well-tested, exhaustively experimented bodies of science in existence. Yet, every lay person in the world thinks that biology is somehow open to debate. Just shut the fuck up if you don't know what you're talking about. Truth is not a democracy, your vote doesn't count.

Choobus 07-01-2008 10:39 AM

Missionary is obviously a shit stirring tard. I suggest that we all starve him. He is beyond tedious. He is no more capable of learning than a rock, and not as much fun to talk to either.

Missionary 07-01-2008 10:44 AM

Thanks zer0 for your ardent defense of The Theory Of EvolutionTM.

So, you can't really explain sexual reproduction either except that they appeared suddenly during the Cambrian Explosion. However, you seem to indicate that organisms sort of "saw a benefit" to overcoming "reproduction limits the genetic variability in a population"?? Do you think they just "slid" into genders gradually or suddenly? How would a missing link show it's transitional gender mutations?

Missionary 07-01-2008 10:46 AM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 503072)
Missionary is obviously a shit stirring tard. I suggest that we all starve him. He is beyond tedious. He is no more capable of learning than a rock, and not as much fun to talk to either.

Don't want to comment or commit to the unknowable again? How many topics of science do you fear discussing out in the open? I bet it's all of them.

Erik 07-01-2008 11:20 AM

Oh, for crying out loud. There are hundreds of things that aren't explained yet, but that doesn't mean you just toss out the whole theory. Nobody knows exactly how gravity works yet, either, but I don't see you challenging that. Prior to the discovery of DNA, people disdained of ever finding out what the mechanism of genetics was. OH MY GOD! WE'LL NEVER KNOW HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS! Well, check in 50 years later and in fact, we know quite a bit. So going around saying that something cannot be solved is a fool's game.

Part of the problem with explaining how sexual reproduction arose is that soft tissue (no jokes please) does not readily fossilize. But to say that it is an intractable problem is to fall into the same old trap that generations have fallen into. Recent examples would include the evolution of the eye and the evolution of whales.

I will say that your idea is highly amusing: you seem to be saying that although many other biological characteristics may be explained by evolution, the one thing that your god was particularly keen on inventing was sex. Almost as if your god just likes to watch things fuck.

Irreligious 07-01-2008 12:45 PM

Quote:

Erik wrote (Post 503093)
... you seem to be saying that although many other biological characteristics may be explained by evolution, the one thing that your god was particularly keen on inventing was sex. Almost as if your god just likes to watch things fuck.

But only if they're married and planning to have babies. Otherwise, his god intended them to be like amoeba and split.

Tenspace 07-01-2008 01:46 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503052)
No observable, testable, measurable, repeatable evidence exists to explain how male and female evolved from asexual organisms. Evolutionary biologists have been unable to determine the origin of sexual reproduction, sperm and egg, or a mechanism that might cause such a mutation.

That doesn't prevent the "Wonders of the Scientifically Fantastical" sci-fi stories from being spun. But still, not a shred or speck of hard scientific evidence.

Discuss.

No observable, testable, measurable, repeatable evidence exists to explaining how stars are formed, but that doesn't stop Science from studying the subject and presenting various hypotheses which attempt to explain the phenomenon. By default, processes that take millions of years - like evolution, star formation, and fossilization - are untestable in the short timescale of a single human's existence. Funny how folks think that if no one was there to record an event, it could never have happened.

So, Missy (you don't mind if I call you Missy, do you?), let's take a look at your statement, and compare it to what the scientific community has to say about sexual reproduction.

First, drop the word, Gender - it is irrelevant here. Sex is what we're talking about. Gender primarily refers to the linguistics of referencing the classes of nouns. Sex is how we classify biological organisms, and it's what we do to make new organisms. We don't have gender to make babies, though we refer to said babies in gender, as He or She.

So, how did life go from fucking itself to fucking a mate? Let's discuss:

Up until about twenty years ago, the two primary competing hypotheses for the reason behind sexual reproduction were Deleterious Mutation, and the Red Queen hypothesis. DM's prime reasoning was that sexual exists to purge a species of damaging genetic mutations.(1) Basically, it goes like this: an asexual organism produces a clone. The clone will carry two copies, or alleles, of a mutation. If the organism dies, then the mutation dies with it. Sexual reproduction allows mutations to continue throughout the organism's gene pool's history. Most mutations are harmful, and the organisms carrying those harmful/lethal mutations won't generate viable offspring, whereas neutral or beneficial mutations will be passed on to future offspring, allowing for a more diverse genetic pool. This explains a benefit of sex, but does not penetrate the subject completely, pulling out before a valid origins hypothesis can be fertilized.

The Red Queen hypothesis, first proposed by Leigh Van Valen(2), states, very simply, that sex evolved in order to fight disease. Host species can fight off diseases by evolving new genetic defenses against the attacking organisms. That doesn't sound like much of a big deal, until you realize that all those non-deleterious mutations are carried by the organism's offspring, which leads to greater variability in future generations. This hypothesis goes much further in presenting a methodology for the split from asexual to sexual reproduction.

To summarize, sexual reproduction is more adept at providing mechanisms to combat disease, whereas asexual reproduction is advantageous where populations of organisms don't face external threats from parasites.

Now, let's talk about the origin of sexual reproduction vs asexual reproduction. All eukaryotes produce sexually, whereas most prokaryotes produces asexually. Biology is in general agreement that the split from protists was heralded by sexual reproduction. And here we are, partially in agreement with your statement: was it Viral Eukaryogenesis, or cannibalism/recombination, or viral fusion? We don't know exactly the original event that occurred which created sexual reproduction - but we do know that it happened, approximately when it happened, and in what organisms it could have happened. This does not detract from evolution, biology, or your last orgasm. It is simply a case of, "we don't know yet, but one day, if we continue to enhance evolutionary theory, we'll find out."

Just like the origin of the universe, or prokaryotic life, or the godhead in any of three thousand religions, we may not be able to explain the origin to the last detail, but that does not deter us from understanding and contemplating the results we see around us today.

So yes, you're right - we don't have an answer to the origin of sex, but we know it exists, we know it is beneficial for diploid organisms, and we understand enough about it to postulate its origins. And we certainly know that we would never, ever participate in the act with Paris Hilton, for fear of acquiring those really, really deleterious pathogens she carries in her cooch, a walking, talking petri dish of unimaginable horror.

(1) A. Kondrashov, 1988, Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature 336: 435-440

(2) L. Van Valen, 1973, A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory, 1:1-30.

zer0 07-01-2008 02:53 PM

I applaud you Tenspace for actually taking the time to reference sources when replying to this dipwad.

ProveIt 07-01-2008 05:32 PM

Can we make it so that trolls can only comment in the forum... and not start threads?

Choobus 07-01-2008 05:33 PM

Only if we can get an efficient troll detector

Missionary 07-01-2008 06:54 PM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503127)
No observable, testable, measurable, repeatable evidence exists to explaining how stars are formed, but that doesn't stop Science from studying the subject and presenting various hypotheses which attempt to explain the phenomenon. By default, processes that take millions of years - like evolution, star formation, and fossilization - are untestable in the short timescale of a single human's existence. Funny how folks think that if no one was there to record an event, it could never have happened.

Now, I don't have a problem with that as long as we identify it as hypothetical explanations. And no, it's not a matter of "it didn't happen" and you know it. The problem is that some people take those speculative hypothesis and run with them like they're facts. They aren't facts and they aren't even factual explanations. They're opinions of possible mechanisms and events that may have SOME bearing to the actual event and how it happened OR may be completely inaccurate.

What many atheists will do is CLAIM "I rely upon peer reviewed EVIDENCE and FACTS!!" then out of the other side of their mouths claim "Abiogenesis EXPLAINS it ALL!!" which of course is faith and belief in hypothetical scientific explanations; not science and the scientific method.

Other atheists who know better don't correct these folks thus perpetuating untruths and acting intellectually dishonest.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503127)
So, Missy (you don't mind if I call you Missy, do you?),

Whatever makes you feel superior.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503127)
let's take a look at your statement, and compare it to what the scientific community has to say about sexual reproduction.

What the scientific community "has to say" really doesn't amount to a hill of beans without actually observing, testing, collecting data, etc. They may put forth an educated opinion, but lets not fool ourselves, it's opinion, speculation, and conjecture. It's an educated guess and nothing more.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503127)
First, drop the word, Gender - it is irrelevant here. Sex is what we're talking about. Gender primarily refers to the linguistics of referencing the classes of nouns. Sex is how we classify biological organisms, and it's what we do to make new organisms. We don't have gender to make babies, though we refer to said babies in gender, as He or She.

The act of sex and the gender of sex are separate yet interrelated subjects. You have to have male and female sexes to 'have sex' and reproduce. We see this in plants, animals, insects, and humans.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503127)
So, how did life go from fucking itself to fucking a mate? Let's discuss:

Up until about twenty years ago, the two primary competing hypotheses for the reason behind sexual reproduction were Deleterious Mutation, and the Red Queen hypothesis. DM's prime reasoning was that sexual exists to purge a species of damaging genetic mutations.(1) Basically, it goes like this: an asexual organism produces a clone. The clone will carry two copies, or alleles, of a mutation. If the organism dies, then the mutation dies with it. Sexual reproduction allows mutations to continue throughout the organism's gene pool's history. Most mutations are harmful, and the organisms carrying those harmful/lethal mutations won't generate viable offspring, whereas neutral or beneficial mutations will be passed on to future offspring, allowing for a more diverse genetic pool. This explains a benefit of sex, but does not penetrate the subject completely, pulling out before a valid origins hypothesis can be fertilized.

The Red Queen hypothesis, first proposed by Leigh Van Valen(2), states, very simply, that sex evolved in order to fight disease. Host species can fight off diseases by evolving new genetic defenses against the attacking organisms. That doesn't sound like much of a big deal, until you realize that all those non-deleterious mutations are carried by the organism's offspring, which leads to greater variability in future generations. This hypothesis goes much further in presenting a methodology for the split from asexual to sexual reproduction.

To summarize, sexual reproduction is more adept at providing mechanisms to combat disease, whereas asexual reproduction is advantageous where populations of organisms don't face external threats from parasites.

Now, let's talk about the origin of sexual reproduction vs asexual reproduction. All eukaryotes produce sexually, whereas most prokaryotes produces asexually. Biology is in general agreement that the split from protists was heralded by sexual reproduction. And here we are, partially in agreement with your statement: was it Viral Eukaryogenesis, or cannibalism/recombination, or viral fusion?

According to the Wiki, The Red Queen hypothesis simply attempts to "explain the advantage of sexual reproduction at the level of individuals, and the constant evolutionary arms race between competing species" AND as an "explanatory tangent to his proposed Law of Extinction". It further states that "...a direct test of the hypothesis remains elusive, particularly at the macroevolutionary level" AND "Discussions of sex and reproduction were not part of Van Valen's Red Queen's Hypothesis"

So, i
t does not offer or propose any mechanism by which asexual organisms began an evolutionary process of mutation over millions of years mutating into separate male/female sexes of the species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex state the following, "The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology. Many groups of organisms, notably the majority of animals and plants, reproduce sexually. The evolution of sex contains two related, yet distinct, themes: its origin and its maintenance. However, since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test experimentally, most current work has been focused on the maintenance of sexual reproduction."

While there are plenty of explanations available for benefits which obviously can be observed theres a problem with genetic deficiencies and mutations degenerating and weakening the species as opposed to strengthening any given species.

Single cell organisms still exist today in a variety of forms, remained asexual, remained healthy, have a plentiful food source, hospitable environment and really have shown no need to mutate into anything else much less mutate into separate male/female sexes and reproduce in some new complicated egg-sperm-seed-pistol-pollination schemes.

Regardless of the "benefit" hypothesis and theories, the mechanisms ivolved are almost silent except for Viral Eukaryogenesis and Neomuran Revolution. Now, the Neomuran Revolution theory proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith is interesting because he dismisses other scientific opinion based on what he refers to as " “theoretically and empirically” unsound model of molecular clocks"...hahaha. I agree with that.

So essentially, science so far has failed to come up with anything more than a model and speculative opinionated conjecture to explain the simultaneous mutations of a variety of species over millions of years into male/female sexes WHILE STILL reproducing asexually AS THEY mutated into opposite sexes. You have to admit, that's an difficult mutation to explain away.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503127)
We don't know exactly the original event that occurred which created sexual reproduction - but we do know that it happened, approximately when it happened, and in what organisms it could have happened.

Obviously male/female exists and reproduction happens. So, of course we know it's here.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503127)
This does not detract from evolution, biology, or your last orgasm. It is simply a case of, "we don't know yet, but one day, if we continue to enhance evolutionary theory, we'll find out."

Now that's hopeful; dare I say faith. "enhance evolutionary theory"?? That's an interesting phrase. I suspect (and hope) you mean 'find evidence to support' as opposed to dream up a new story to fill the gap of missing knowledge.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503127)
Just like the origin of the universe, or prokaryotic life, or the godhead in any of three thousand religions, we may not be able to explain the origin to the last detail, but that does not deter us from understanding and contemplating the results we see around us today.

So yes, you're right - we don't have an answer to the origin of sex, but we know it exists, we know it is beneficial for diploid organisms, and we understand enough about it to postulate its origins. And we certainly know that we would never, ever participate in the act with Paris Hilton, for fear of acquiring those really, really deleterious pathogens she carries in her cooch, a walking, talking petri dish of unimaginable horror.

(1) A. Kondrashov, 1988, Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature 336: 435-440

(2) L. Van Valen, 1973, A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory, 1:1-30.

Again...of course we know it exists. I'll disagree with your position that it doesn't threaten or detract from the Theory of Evolution because it's critical to science in proving that all life originates from common ancestry and single cells.

Again...The species has to originate as asexual, that it is purposely mutating towards a new beneficial reproduction scheme, over millions of years, while reproducing asexually the entire time. Until that one special day...bam, sex. I don't know there...that's a very tall mutation order. Very, very tall mechanism. Lots of species involved.

A model and hypothesis isn't going to be sufficient here. We'll need an observation somehow. Otherwise, it cannot just be skipped over or pushed aside to claim the Theory of Evo to be fact. It HAS to be answered with hard evidence.

Missionary 07-01-2008 07:00 PM

Quote:

ProveIt wrote (Post 503187)
Can we make it so that trolls can only comment in the forum... and not start threads?

I'm sure mods can always delete threads that are spam. Or lock them and put them in a special spam forum. They can even move troll/bait-argument starting threads there.

However, if you're afraid of a theist blowing up your belief system because of it's frailty ...I suggest you reevaluate your belief system as opposed to playing thought police and thread censor.

This thread topic is legit. And it's a major threat to evolution. In fact, it could prove to be the sinking of the whole ship.

Mog 07-01-2008 07:02 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503204)
I'm sure mods can always delete threads that are spam. Or lock them and put them in a special spam forum. They can even move troll/bait-argument starting threads there.

However, if you're afraid of a theist blowing up your belief system because of it's frailty ...I suggest you reevaluate your belief system as opposed to playing thought police and thread censor.

This thread topic is legit. And it's a major threat to evolution. In fact, it could prove to be the sinking of the whole ship.

Its not. Your entire 5 or so paragraphs are just hand-waving. It doesn't threaten evolution at all. You are just restating "god of the gaps" arguments.

Choobus 07-01-2008 07:05 PM

It's funny how these godidiots trot out the same tired old arguments like they were the result of a brilliant insight. Atheists do it as well sometimes when arguing about religion, but usually its when they are in their early teens, an age at which almost everyone is a bit of a twat. Godidiots just never seem to grow out of that phase.

Tenspace 07-01-2008 07:40 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503203)
Now, I don't have a problem with that as long as we identify it as hypothetical explanations. And no, it's not a matter of "it didn't happen" and you know it. The problem is that some people take those speculative hypothesis and run with them like they're facts. They aren't facts and they aren't even factual explanations. They're opinions of possible mechanisms and events that may have SOME bearing to the actual event and how it happened OR may be completely inaccurate.

And a group of such opinions, backed by the collective evidence of generations of people who devoted their lives to such study, lends credence to those explanations, allowing them to become ensconced in the the body of scientific knowledge as a theory. Just because you can't test it and replicate it doesn't make it any less of an effort. Are you saying that all non-empirical collections of scientific thought are irrelevant because no one was there to test and replicate the event?

Quote:

What many atheists will do is CLAIM "I rely upon peer reviewed EVIDENCE and FACTS!!" then out of the other side of their mouths claim "Abiogenesis EXPLAINS it ALL!!" which of course is faith and belief in hypothetical scientific explanations; not science and the scientific method.

Other atheists who know better don't correct these folks thus perpetuating untruths and acting intellectually dishonest.
Smells like fresh straw, to me. You sure that's even a stated position?



Quote:

Whatever makes you feel superior.
Dressing up in a nun's habit (preferably an assless one), then directing traffic on Main St in a small Alabama town makes me feel superior. Calling you Missy is just my way of avoiding the unreasonable urge to type 'position' after your nom de guerre.



Quote:

What the scientific community "has to say" really doesn't amount to a hill of beans without actually observing, testing, collecting data, etc. They may put forth an educated opinion, but lets not fool ourselves, it's opinion, speculation, and conjecture. It's an educated guess and nothing more.
So, you are one of the "no one was there, therefore we can never understand it" camp. Do you also discount the fossil record, plate tectonics, and the birth of Jesus? Afterall, no one was there to observe any of those events.

Furthermore, an 'educated opinion', is the foundation of the scientific community - kinda like that little brown paper wrapper that holds your Reese Cup. It was just an 'educated opinion' that drove Fermi, Pauli, and other proponents of the quantum theory. Hell, exclusion was just a principle, not a fact!


Quote:

The act of sex and the gender of sex are separate yet interrelated subjects. You have to have male and female sexes to 'have sex' and reproduce. We see this in plants, animals, insects, and humans.
Then use the proper terminology, please. When referring to the origins of the separation of diploids into two distinct sexes, call it sex. If you're discussing whether He said or She said, call them genders.


Quote:

According to the Wiki, The Red Queen hypothesis simply attempts to "explain the advantage of sexual reproduction at the level of individuals, and the constant evolutionary arms race between competing species" AND as an "explanatory tangent to his proposed Law of Extinction". It further states that "...a direct test of the hypothesis remains elusive, particularly at the macroevolutionary level" AND "Discussions of sex and reproduction were not part of Van Valen's Red Queen's Hypothesis"

So, i
t does not offer or propose any mechanism by which asexual organisms began an evolutionary process of mutation over millions of years mutating into separate male/female sexes of the species.
I suggest you read a bit deeper than the wikipedia.org page. You'll find great references at pbs.org, indiana.edu, and nih.gov. The RQ hypothesis, as you mentioned, didn't even begin to discuss sex; and Darwin knew nothing of genetics, either. My point is that as the hypothesis gained an audience, it was applied to other evolutionary subjects, and goes quite a long way in explaining oddities, such as the human female's immune system reaction to testosterone, and the fact that the placental sac is genetically encoded in males only, on the y chromosome.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex state the following, "The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology. Many groups of organisms, notably the majority of animals and plants, reproduce sexually. The evolution of sex contains two related, yet distinct, themes: its origin and its maintenance. However, since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test experimentally, most current work has been focused on the maintenance of sexual reproduction."

While there are plenty of explanations available for benefits which obviously can be observed theres a problem with genetic deficiencies and mutations degenerating and weakening the species as opposed to strengthening any given species.

Single cell organisms still exist today in a variety of forms, remained asexual, remained healthy, have a plentiful food source, hospitable environment and really have shown no need to mutate into anything else much less mutate into separate male/female sexes and reproduce in some new complicated egg-sperm-seed-pistol-pollination schemes.

Regardless of the "benefit" hypothesis and theories, the mechanisms ivolved are almost silent except for Viral Eukaryogenesis and Neomuran Revolution. Now, the Neomuran Revolution theory proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith is interesting because he dismisses other scientific opinion based on what he refers to as " “theoretically and empirically” unsound model of molecular clocks"...hahaha. I agree with that.
Good for you.

Quote:

So essentially, science so far has failed to come up with anything more than a model and speculative opinionated conjecture to explain the simultaneous mutations of a variety of species over millions of years into male/female sexes WHILE STILL reproducing asexually AS THEY mutated into opposite sexes. You have to admit, that's an difficult mutation to explain away.
Argh. Who said anything about convergence? That last paragraph really lays open to all your understanding (or lack thereof) of evolutionary theory. It's a mutation that lies at the base of the prokaryotic revolution. It appears that subsequent asexual reproduction in non-protists is the exception.



Quote:

Obviously male/female exists and reproduction happens. So, of course we know it's here.



Now that's hopeful; dare I say faith. "enhance evolutionary theory"?? That's an interesting phrase. I suspect (and hope) you mean 'find evidence to support' as opposed to dream up a new story to fill the gap of missing knowledge.
Well, you tell me what I was thinking, then. Those here who know me would state that I'm not the type to dream up gap-filling stories. I rip people for not citing their sources, and I'm the uber-skeptic when it comes to unfounded conjecture.



Quote:

Again...of course we know it exists. I'll disagree with your position that it doesn't threaten or detract from the Theory of Evolution because it's critical to science in proving that all life originates from common ancestry and single cells.

Again...The species has to originate as asexual, that it is purposely mutating towards a new beneficial reproduction scheme, over millions of years, while reproducing asexually the entire time. Until that one special day...bam, sex. I don't know there...that's a very tall mutation order. Very, very tall mechanism. Lots of species involved.

A model and hypothesis isn't going to be sufficient here. We'll need an observation somehow. Otherwise, it cannot just be skipped over or pushed aside to claim the Theory of Evo to be fact. It HAS to be answered with hard evidence.
The evidence is all around you. All lifeforms are transitional. Just pick your poison, and study what lies within. Neotony? Convergent evolution? Sexual dimorphism? There are stages of life all over the globe that provide strong empirical support to any of these theories.

Tenspace 07-01-2008 07:41 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 503207)
It's funny how these godidiots trot out the same tired old arguments like they were the result of a brilliant insight. Atheists do it as well sometimes when arguing about religion, but usually its when they are in their early teens, an age at which almost everyone is a bit of a twat. Godidiots just never seem to grow out of that phase.

It stems from their inversion of understanding. They start with a belief, then apply facts as they see fit to make their position true.

Missionary 07-01-2008 07:44 PM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503205)
Its not. Your entire 5 or so paragraphs are just hand-waving. It doesn't threaten evolution at all. You are just restating "god of the gaps" arguments.

Oh, no my friend. It's the "Scientist of the Gaps" all the way. There is not one single shred of scientific evidence. Only speculative opinion and conjecture of the unknown.

I'll requote the opening statement of the Wiki:
"The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology."

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

Now, you feel free to find and point me to a research paper that refutes that statement. I'll read every single word of it and report back.

Choobus 07-01-2008 07:46 PM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503221)
It stems from their inversion of understanding. They start with a belief, then apply facts as they see fit to make their position true.

And of course they are taught that to doubt is sinful and an insult to god, whereas blind faith praises his glory and is worth 100 wank points extra when you get to heaven.

Mog 07-01-2008 08:28 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503222)
Oh, no my friend. It's the "Scientist of the Gaps" all the way. There is not one single shred of scientific evidence. Only speculative opinion and conjecture of the unknown.

I'll requote the opening statement of the Wiki:
"The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology."

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

Now, you feel free to find and point me to a research paper that refutes that statement. I'll read every single word of it and report back.

Its a puzzle, thats all you state. Unexplained does not mean inexplicable.

Just because you don't know how the pyramids were built does not mean that God built them.

Missionary 07-01-2008 08:57 PM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503220)
And a group of such opinions, backed by the collective evidence of generations of people who devoted their lives to such study, lends credence to those explanations, allowing them to become ensconced in the the body of scientific knowledge as a theory. Just because you can't test it and replicate it doesn't make it any less of an effort. Are you saying that all non-empirical collections of scientific thought are irrelevant because no one was there to test and replicate the event?

Not at all. As long as we agree that it's nothing more than "non-empirical collections of scientific thought". The moment some young over-enthusiastic atheist begins holding it up as evidence and proof I've got an issue to settle.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503220)
Smells like fresh straw, to me. You sure that's even a stated position?

Do a post search on calpurnpiso to get started.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503220)
So, you are one of the "no one was there, therefore we can never understand it" camp. Do you also discount the fossil record, plate tectonics, and the birth of Jesus? Afterall, no one was there to observe any of those events.

There's lots of different kinds of evidence. We all observe the same writings, artifacts, events, phenomenon, processes, principles, etc. Much of it is cut and dry obvious facts that we can agree on and don't really represent any legitimate argument or controversy.

However, the vast majority is subject to the problem of accurate interpretation which can be difficult to say the least. You have to admit, scientists often disagree even with peer reviewed lab results. Just because an explanation sounds plausible and gains consensus doesn't necessarily mean that it's accurate or factual. Therefore to become dogmatic over a "collection of scientific thoughts" is quite a different situation from, say for example, relativity which can be observed, tested, measured, repeated in lab and nature.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503220)
Furthermore, an 'educated opinion', is the foundation of the scientific community - kinda like that little brown paper wrapper that holds your Reese Cup. It was just an 'educated opinion' that drove Fermi, Pauli, and other proponents of the quantum theory. Hell, exclusion was just a principle, not a fact!

Again, I don't have a problem with that. But lets be realistic. If we could compile all the "scientific opinion" throughout history that now now resides in the garbage heap, how would that compare to what still holds water? Ask Edison how many ways he learned NOT to make an incandescent lamp.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503220)
Then use the proper terminology, please. When referring to the origins of the separation of diploids into two distinct sexes, call it sex. If you're discussing whether He said or She said, call them genders.

I'm no genetic biologist. I'll leave the terms to you.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503220)
I suggest you read a bit deeper than the wikipedia.org page. You'll find great references at pbs.org, indiana.edu, and nih.gov. The RQ hypothesis, as you mentioned, didn't even begin to discuss sex; and Darwin knew nothing of genetics, either. My point is that as the hypothesis gained an audience, it was applied to other evolutionary subjects, and goes quite a long way in explaining oddities, such as the human female's immune system reaction to testosterone, and the fact that the placental sac is genetically encoded in males only, on the y chromosome.

No doubt there are vast differences between the sexes that make sense in regards to reproduction. I wouldn't expect to find anything different in created beings.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503220)
Good for you.

Funny. So all these mutations that are supposedly beneficial to survival of a species can be allegedly explained if they need explaining to further the theory. However, it appears that we're observing many cases of genetic degeneration among a variety of species. That doesn't really make much sense for a reproduction scheme that "developed with the intention of providing benefit" to a species, now does it?

As I pointed out...Single cell organisms STILL exist in a variety of forms and seem to be built for longevity. We haven't observed any evidence of a need for male/female amoebas.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503220)
Argh. Who said anything about convergence? That last paragraph really lays open to all your understanding (or lack thereof) of evolutionary theory. It's a mutation that lies at the base of the prokaryotic revolution. It appears that subsequent asexual reproduction in non-protists is the exception.

Oh, I'll admit I couldn't identify a prokaryotic revolution if it surround my nation with canons and muskets. All I know is? For a sex mutation to take place it in evolution it would take a long long time AND the species would have to continue reproducing asexually until the sex mutation was complete and functioning.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503220)
Well, you tell me what I was thinking, then. Those here who know me would state that I'm not the type to dream up gap-filling stories. I rip people for not citing their sources, and I'm the uber-skeptic when it comes to unfounded conjecture.

You seem reasonable when it comes to evidence. I'm not saying YOU dream them up. But somehow "a collection of scientific thought" comes about. Now, I've got nothing against brain storming and abstract thinking or problem solving. I just want to keep the cloud of speculation separated from scientific "evidence and facts" that some like to put forth. That's really all.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503220)
The evidence is all around you. All lifeforms are transitional. Just pick your poison, and study what lies within. Neotony? Convergent evolution? Sexual dimorphism? There are stages of life all over the globe that provide strong empirical support to any of these theories.

I don't have any doubt or question about variation of species who breed, crossbreed, inbreed and adapt, change, and adjust in response to a whole host of variables over thousands of years. There's lots of different types of birds, butterflies, flowers, fish, etc. However, that's pretty much it.

Then again snails, ferns, mollusks, claims and fruit flies all seem to be hearty long surviving species with little need for change. I imagine there's plenty more doing just fine.

Missionary 07-01-2008 09:06 PM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503230)
Its a puzzle, thats all you state. Unexplained does not mean inexplicable.

If it's currently unexplained it can only be filled with speculation or honest admittance. You seem to be defending gaps of knowledge and the putty and duct tape used to hold it together.

So be honest. IF the Theory of Evolution is dependent upon all phylum and species originating from asexual single cell organisms, then isn't the discovery of exactly HOW sexual reproduction came into existence an important issue? Wouldn't you demand observation, transitional fossils, or other hard evidence? I mean really, just to offer some hypothetical explanation just isn't going to do here.

Or will you dust it under the rug with the origin of energy, matter, and life? And of course, your non-position concerning the core of the sun.

Missionary 07-01-2008 09:10 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 503223)
And of course they are taught that to doubt is sinful and an insult to god, whereas blind faith praises his glory and is worth 100 wank points extra when you get to heaven.

I know you're anxious to talk about your obsession with God. However, this is a science thread. Please stay on topic and visit my "Atheists are Obsessed With God" thread to continue denying what you already know to be true.

:D

Mog 07-01-2008 09:14 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503238)
I know you're anxious to talk about your obsession with God. However, this is a science thread. Please stay on topic and visit my "Atheists are Obsessed With God" thread to continue denying what you already know to be true.

:D

Don't you mean obsession with religion? Or obsession with the delusion of god, or obession with people obsessed with the idea of god?

I mean if you want to be snarky, at least be accurate about it.

Missionary 07-01-2008 09:15 PM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503221)
It stems from their inversion of understanding. They start with a belief, then apply facts as they see fit to make their position true.

I agree, The Theory of EvolutionTM has become the frame which every explanation MUST fit within. The premise CANNOT be challenged or questioned; only supported.

Otherwise, you could get pooh-poohed right out of a career. Blackballed even.

Missionary 07-01-2008 09:16 PM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503241)
Don't you mean obsession with religion? Or obsession with the delusion of god, or obession with people obsessed with the idea of god?

I mean if you want to be snarky, at least be accurate about it.

Oh no...it's God alright. You're not an areligionist.

Mog 07-01-2008 09:21 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503237)
If it's currently unexplained it can only be filled with speculation or honest admittance. You seem to be defending gaps of knowledge and the putty and duct tape used to hold it together.

So be honest. IF the Theory of Evolution is dependent upon all phylum and species originating from asexual single cell organisms, then isn't the discovery of exactly HOW sexual reproduction came into existence an important issue? Wouldn't you demand observation, transitional fossils, or other hard evidence? I mean really, just to offer some hypothetical explanation just isn't going to do here.

Or will you dust it under the rug with the origin of energy, matter, and life? And of course, your non-position concerning the core of the sun.

I don't see any putty or duct tape. Thats all I see when I see your beliefs. Every question starts with an educated speculation, a.k.a. hypothesis. We examine it, see where it goes wrong and construct a new hypothesis. If we can test this hypothesis thoroughly, it becomes a theory.

We haven't dusted anything under the rug.

And I definitely do have a position concerning the core of the sun. I find it amusing though, that you keep asking begging me to give an answer rather than try to find it for yourself. For someone who supposedly has an interest in science, that's revealingly unscientific.

Mog 07-01-2008 09:22 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503243)
Oh no...it's God alright. You're not an areligionist.

Nope, cause we don't have an obsession with something that doesn't exist. I think the closest you can come to any accuracy on the matter is "obsession with the concept of god"

Tenspace 07-01-2008 09:25 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote (Post 503223)
And of course they are taught that to doubt is sinful and an insult to god, whereas blind faith praises his glory and is worth 100 wank points extra when you get to heaven.

Ah, yes, but sadly, the diddling priests often use up those wank points prior to the faithful's demise.

Missionary 07-01-2008 09:40 PM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503244)
I don't see any putty or duct tape. Thats all I see when I see your beliefs. Every question starts with an educated speculation, a.k.a. hypothesis. We examine it, see where it goes wrong and construct a new hypothesis. If we can test this hypothesis thoroughly, it becomes a theory.

Oh, there's putty and duct tape. There's even bosonic glue. For bosons.

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503244)
We haven't dusted anything under the rug.

Then answer the question:

"So be honest. IF the Theory of Evolution is dependent upon all phylum and species originating from asexual single cell organisms, then isn't the discovery of exactly HOW sexual reproduction came into existence an important issue? Wouldn't you demand observation, transitional fossils, or other hard evidence? I mean really, just to offer some hypothetical explanation just isn't going to do here."


Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503244)
And I definitely do have a position concerning the core of the sun. I find it amusing though, that you keep asking begging me to give an answer rather than try to find it for yourself. For someone who supposedly has an interest in science, that's revealingly unscientific.

I've learned plenty. I want to hear your position from you.

Tenspace 07-01-2008 10:10 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503235)
Not at all. As long as we agree that it's nothing more than "non-empirical collections of scientific thought". The moment some young over-enthusiastic atheist begins holding it up as evidence and proof I've got an issue to settle.

Well, it is evidence, and there is proof, and I'm probably older than you, and yes, I'm enthusastic about evolution; my atheism has nothing to do with my love of science; since you don't know, I was a Jew for 38 years before giving it up ten years ago. So, what is a theory, but a collection of scientific thought? Whether a discipline is empirical or inferred through study is irrelevant; otherwise, you're calling bullshit on everything from climatology to geology.

Quote:

Do a post search on calpurnpiso to get started.
:lol: Cal, I love you dearly, dude, but I would never look to you as a standard-bearer of scientific knowledge. Missy, you should learn to qualify the information you receive with regard to the provider and their level of education in the subject at hand. Cal's expertise isn't evolution or the scientific method. He's the first person I'd go to, however, for issues regarding Jesus, Julius, and lost arts.


Quote:

There's lots of different kinds of evidence. We all observe the same writings, artifacts, events, phenomenon, processes, principles, etc. Much of it is cut and dry obvious facts that we can agree on and don't really represent any legitimate argument or controversy.
And all the writings come from one book - not very objective. And every single artifact, from the Shroud to the Ossuary has been proven bogus. There is no empirical evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was a supernatural being, a messiah, or a god. But that's a topic for another thread, so let's get back to evolution.

Quote:

However, the vast majority is subject to the problem of accurate interpretation which can be difficult to say the least. You have to admit, scientists often disagree even with peer reviewed lab results. Just because an explanation sounds plausible and gains consensus doesn't necessarily mean that it's accurate or factual. Therefore to become dogmatic over a "collection of scientific thoughts" is quite a different situation from, say for example, relativity which can be observed, tested, measured, repeated in lab and nature.
Again, you dismiss a whole branch of science as inaccurate and non-factual. Geology, Cosmology, and a wealth of biological sciences are untestable in a lab. Yes, certain aspects are testable (neutrino detection from cosmic ray bombardment, for example), but that also applies to evolution. Read up on mathematical models of kin relations for starters. These are things that can be tested in a lab. And what about Lenski's e. coli that evolved to absorb citrates?



Quote:

Again, I don't have a problem with that. But lets be realistic. If we could compile all the "scientific opinion" throughout history that now now resides in the garbage heap, how would that compare to what still holds water? Ask Edison how many ways he learned NOT to make an incandescent lamp.
Realize that the garbage heap is what the current theories stand on. Relativity didn't replace Newtonian gravity, it supplemented it, like Darwin supplemented Mendel's work. Umm.. invention is way different than theoretical work. Edison was prescient in using tungsten, wouldn't you say? It has nothing to to with electromagnetic theory; he was more of a materials scientist.



Quote:

I'm no genetic biologist. I'll leave the terms to you.
Nor am I. It would be more appropriate to state that you aren't a stickler for language, since gender is unrelated - I'm just trying to help some of our gentle readers understand that we're talking about sex, not gender as you stated in your thread title.



Quote:

No doubt there are vast differences between the sexes that make sense in regards to reproduction. I wouldn't expect to find anything different in created beings.
And herein lies the root of your epic failure. You don't care about an explanation. Tell me, why would a Creator give the male the genes for creating a placenta? Why would a Creator trigger a female's immune system to suppress testosterone expression in a developing fetus? It's the search for answers to questions like these that lead to discovery and progress. If you already have all the answers, then what do you care?



Quote:

Funny. So all these mutations that are supposedly beneficial to survival of a species can be allegedly explained if they need explaining to further the theory. However, it appears that we're observing many cases of genetic degeneration among a variety of species. That doesn't really make much sense for a reproduction scheme that "developed with the intention of providing benefit" to a species, now does it?

As I pointed out...Single cell organisms STILL exist in a variety of forms and seem to be built for longevity. We haven't observed any evidence of a need for male/female amoebas.
All I wrote was "Good for you" - a lot of inference on your part that I would even consider reverse logic to apply explanations to mutations. All mutations have an explanation; it is disingenuous to assume that an explanation is only valid if it fits the overarching belief of the presenter. That's opposite of what I've been saying.

If you even attempted to understand the Red Queen hypothesis, you would retract that statement - it clearly states that in absence of parasites, asexual reproduction rules; whereas in more complex organisms, sexual reproduction gets it done. Here, let me refer you to yet another scientific article on evolution that you probably won't read. It's clearly stated in many texts that the RQ hypothesis is a great example of coevolution. I'll quote most of the article, as you did with wikipedia, to get my point across lazily:

Red Queen Hypothesis.--The "Red Queen" hypothesis is used to describe two similar ideas, which are both based on coevolution. The original idea is that coevolution could lead to situations for which the probability of extinction is relatively constant over millions of years (Van Valen 1973). The gist of the idea is that, in tightly coevolved interactions, evolutionary change by one species (e.g., a prey or host) could lead to extinction of other species (e.g. a predator or parasite), and that the probability of such changes might be reasonably independent of species age. Van Valen named the idea "the Red Queen hypothesis," because, under this view, species had to "run" (evolve) in order to stay in the same place (extant).

The other idea is that coevolution, particularly between hosts and parasites, could lead to sustained oscillations in genotype frequencies. In species where asexual reproduction is possible (as in many plants and invertebrates), coevolutionary interactions with parasites may select for sexual reproduction in hosts as a way to reduce the risk of infection in offspring. There have been many important contributors to the Red Queen hypothesis as it applies to sex. W.D. Hamilton and John Jaenike were among the earliest pioneers of the idea.
- C. M. Lively, Dept. of Biology, Indiana University, discussing: Bell, G. 1982. The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality.


Quote:

Oh, I'll admit I couldn't identify a prokaryotic revolution if it surround my nation with canons and muskets. All I know is? For a sex mutation to take place it in evolution it would take a long long time AND the species would have to continue reproducing asexually until the sex mutation was complete and functioning.
How do you know that? What references can you cite to support your claim? Why would these little microscopic organisms need millions of years (as you stated previously) to differentiate reproductive methods? You do realize that the pro- eukaryotic split happened
something like a billion years ago?

Quote:

You seem reasonable when it comes to evidence. I'm not saying YOU dream them up. But somehow "a collection of scientific thought" comes about. Now, I've got nothing against brain storming and abstract thinking or problem solving. I just want to keep the cloud of speculation separated from scientific "evidence and facts" that some like to put forth. That's really all.
I strongly agree with you here, and not just because you called me reasonable. If you devote the time and effort, and undertake a deep understanding of evolution, you would see a clear line between speculation and theory. It took me two years of daily study before I could even talk intelligently about evolution; I had to understand what I was talking about; I didn't want to simply parrot the literature that I read.

Quote:

I don't have any doubt or question about variation of species who breed, crossbreed, inbreed and adapt, change, and adjust in response to a whole host of variables over thousands of years. There's lots of different types of birds, butterflies, flowers, fish, etc. However, that's pretty much it.

Then again snails, ferns, mollusks, claims and fruit flies all seem to be hearty long surviving species with little need for change. I imagine there's plenty more doing just fine.
So, in other words, you accept microevolution, but not macroevolution. Fish begat fish, and all that. You don't accept that humans and apes descended from the same proto-ape? Or that whales evolved from land mammals? Or that dromedaries once roamed in vast numbers across North America? All these are *facts* derived from evolutionary theory, supported by plenty of evidence, both fossil-based and genetic.

Single Serving Jack 07-02-2008 12:06 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503253)
And herein lies the root of your epic failure. You don't care about an explanation.

Bingo. Epic indeed and such a waste of grey matter. I'm just starting on the long road of learning more about life, genetics, evolution etc - for exactly the reason you stated, that I want to understand, not just repeat what I've read. And it's a joyful experience. Missy has already decided that science doesn't offer understanding, only guesswork and wild conjecture based on nothing. Sad.

Riddler 07-02-2008 04:35 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503203)
So essentially, science so far has failed to come up with anything more than a model and speculative opinionated conjecture to explain the simultaneous mutations of a variety of species over millions of years into male/female sexes WHILE STILL reproducing asexually AS THEY mutated into opposite sexes. You have to admit, that's an difficult mutation to explain away.

The key phrase, of course, is ‘so far’. Unfulfilled potential does not equate to failure. DNA sequencing was one of science's more abject 'failures' prior to your and my adult lifetime. A generation or two ago, science had ‘failed’ to produce a machine that could replicate even the simplest calculations of which the human brain is capable. A century back, it had ‘failed’ even to cause a solid object to levitate or fly. Half a millennium before that, science (of the occidental variety at least) had ‘failed’ to establish that the earth and its neighbouring planets moved around the sun.

That last one was particularly significant, because the untapped potential for reasoned investigation gave legitimacy to a wholly uninformed supposition which was just plain wrong. The rectification opened up questions about the entire validity of supposedly divine 'truths'. So the exception to the statement, ‘unfulfilled potential does not equate to failure’ must be when progress ceases to be sought, and erroneous thought is allowed to flourish unchallenged.

So there is really no reason to despair at what scientific investigation has hitherto been able to achieve. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

antix 07-02-2008 05:36 AM

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503286)
Bingo. Epic indeed and such a waste of grey matter. I'm just starting on the long road of learning more about life, genetics, evolution etc - for exactly the reason you stated, that I want to understand, not just repeat what I've read. And it's a joyful experience. Missy has already decided that science doesn't offer understanding, only guesswork and wild conjecture based on nothing. Sad.

Sadder still that he insists that since science does not make 100% absolute claims, it cannot be used as knowledge. Yet at the same time, he claims he knows with 100% absolute certainty that God not only exists, but his particular interpretation of God is the correct one. Nothing hypocritical about this fundie.

I would wager a guess that Mish is afraid of science. Afraid that by learning and continuing to learn via the scientific method (as opposed to the "let's see what the bible says" method) that his faith will be lose credibility and even dimish into obscurity.

Missionary 07-02-2008 06:45 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503253)
Well, it is evidence, and there is proof, and I'm probably older than you, and yes, I'm enthusastic about evolution; my atheism has nothing to do with my love of science; since you don't know, I was a Jew for 38 years before giving it up ten years ago. So, what is a theory, but a collection of scientific thought? Whether a discipline is empirical or inferred through study is irrelevant; otherwise, you're calling bullshit on everything from climatology to geology.

"I think" is neither evidence or proof in science. Thought precedes the scientific method but once it becomes a replacement anything goes. Newton was rigorous in testing hypothesis and so was Einstien. Dawkins can write all the books of opinion he wants but that doesn't make it science when Hitchens and Harris agree.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503253)
And all the writings come from one book - not very objective. And every single artifact, from the Shroud to the Ossuary has been proven bogus. There is no empirical evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was a supernatural being, a messiah, or a god. But that's a topic for another thread, so let's get back to evolution.

I wasn't referring to scripture or God. We're discussing science.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503253)
Again, you dismiss a whole branch of science as inaccurate and non-factual. Geology, Cosmology, and a wealth of biological sciences are untestable in a lab. Yes, certain aspects are testable (neutrino detection from cosmic ray bombardment, for example), but that also applies to evolution. Read up on mathematical models of kin relations for starters. These are things that can be tested in a lab. And what about Lenski's e. coli that evolved to absorb citrates?

As an engineer I know one thing is for certain; math fails. It fails in application the first time, every time, either by error in equation or model, probably both. When your math equation CANNOT be applied in the lab, field, or nature, all you're holding is a failure to some extent. When your untested math/model becomes a premise, you're building a house of cards that compounds the errors and you have more of nothing.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503253)
Realize that the garbage heap is what the current theories stand on. Relativity didn't replace Newtonian gravity, it supplemented it, like Darwin supplemented Mendel's work. Umm.. invention is way different than theoretical work. Edison was prescient in using tungsten, wouldn't you say? It has nothing to to with electromagnetic theory; he was more of a materials scientist.

Newton gravity was hardly garbage. You're talking of the parts bin, not the garbage heap. The heap is filled with failed scientific thought and experiments. The parts bin is just as full of information that nobody knows what to do with yet.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503253)
And herein lies the root of your epic failure. You don't care about an explanation.

Unless it fits (or can be shoehorned) into the evolutionary mold.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503253)
Tell me, why would a Creator give the male the genes for creating a placenta? Why would a Creator trigger a female's immune system to suppress testosterone expression in a developing fetus? It's the search for answers to questions like these that lead to discovery and progress. If you already have all the answers, then what do you care?

And of course, interpretation and implication of observations can only have one possible course of thought?? There's just no way another explanation can see the light of day once it's discovered and determined to fit the framework of reference, right?

You know better. For all you know humans would cease to exist without genes found in both sexes that may or may not be limited to entire sets of multipurpose instructions. The human genome may be mapped, but it's hardly understood. I'm surprised you didn't invoke vestibule organs. haha

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503253)
All I wrote was "Good for you" - a lot of inference on your part that I would even consider reverse logic to apply explanations to mutations. All mutations have an explanation; it is disingenuous to assume that an explanation is only valid if it fits the overarching belief of the presenter. That's opposite of what I've been saying.

If you even attempted to understand the Red Queen hypothesis, you would retract that statement - it clearly states that in absence of parasites, asexual reproduction rules; whereas in more complex organisms, sexual reproduction gets it done. Here, let me refer you to yet another scientific article on evolution that you probably won't read. It's clearly stated in many texts that the RQ hypothesis is a great example of coevolution. I'll quote most of the article, as you did with wikipedia, to get my point across lazily:

Red Queen Hypothesis.--The "Red Queen" hypothesis is used to describe two similar ideas, which are both based on coevolution. The original idea is that coevolution could lead to situations for which the probability of extinction is relatively constant over millions of years (Van Valen 1973). The gist of the idea is that, in tightly coevolved interactions, evolutionary change by one species (e.g., a prey or host) could lead to extinction of other species (e.g. a predator or parasite), and that the probability of such changes might be reasonably independent of species age. Van Valen named the idea "the Red Queen hypothesis," because, under this view, species had to "run" (evolve) in order to stay in the same place (extant).

The other idea is that coevolution, particularly between hosts and parasites, could lead to sustained oscillations in genotype frequencies. In species where asexual reproduction is possible (as in many plants and invertebrates), coevolutionary interactions with parasites may select for sexual reproduction in hosts as a way to reduce the risk of infection in offspring. There have been many important contributors to the Red Queen hypothesis as it applies to sex. W.D. Hamilton and John Jaenike were among the earliest pioneers of the idea.
- C. M. Lively, Dept. of Biology, Indiana University, discussing: Bell, G. 1982. The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality.

I agree, it's non-empirical untested scientific thought. Now, it could be considered a starting point of research for evidence. But that's not to be confused with "Oh, that's all been answered...we've moved on now. The problem was solved long ago".

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503253)
How do you know that? What references can you cite to support your claim? Why would these little microscopic organisms need millions of years (as you stated previously) to differentiate reproductive methods? You do realize that the pro- eukaryotic split happened
something like a billion years ago?

Support my claim? The claim of evolution is that minute mutations took place over invariably long periods of time (millions?) that would be visibly undetectable in real time. The CLAIM of RQ, IF the RQ theory is remotely accurate, would require a cell with written genetic code to react to parasitic attack and begin reformulating it's reproduction scheme ABOVE building a defense to the parasite while locked in a “genetics arms race” of survival against extinction.

The entire concept of mutating from simple agamogenesis to a scheme involving meiosis, formation of gametes, and fertilization (and please pardon my use of the phrase: I assume) would not be an overnight sensation. In addition, it offers a whole new set of problems for which benefit doesn't even compute in such an inefficient method of reproduction.

Mark Ridley "The Cooperative Gene"
"No one in human culture would try the trick of first making two copies of a message, then breaking each into short bits at random, combining equal amounts from the two to form the version to be transmitted, and throwing the unused half away.
You only have to think of sex to see how absurd it is. The “sexual” method of reading a book would be to buy two copies, rip the pages out, and make a new copy by combining half the pages from one and half from the other, tossing a coin at each page to decide which original to take the page from and which to throw away"

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503253)
I strongly agree with you here, and not just because you called me reasonable. If you devote the time and effort, and undertake a deep understanding of evolution, you would see a clear line between speculation and theory. It took me two years of daily study before I could even talk intelligently about evolution; I had to understand what I was talking about; I didn't want to simply parrot the literature that I read.

I'll say this much...the line between speculation, hypothesis, and theory is indeed becoming increasingly blurred.

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503253)
So, in other words, you accept microevolution, but not macroevolution. Fish begat fish, and all that. You don't accept that humans and apes descended from the same proto-ape? Or that whales evolved from land mammals? Or that dromedaries once roamed in vast numbers across North America? All these are *facts* derived from evolutionary theory, supported by plenty of evidence, both fossil-based and genetic.

Microevolution is observable, testable, explainable. Whole phylum mutation and the tree or bush of life is all theory. Humans share over 50% of the fruit fly's genetic code yet an incredible abyss separates us. ..but you want me to buy into the current tree that shows humans descend from a phylogenetic split with bats and lemurs (ape-chimp/bonobo)?

No, I don't buy it.

http://tellapallet.com/tree_of_life.htm

Missionary 07-02-2008 06:57 AM

Quote:

Riddler wrote (Post 503288)
The key phrase, of course, is ‘so far’.

Your faith in theories is unflappable.

Quote:

Riddler wrote (Post 503288)
Unfulfilled potential does not equate to failure. DNA sequencing was one of science's more abject 'failures' prior to your and my adult lifetime. A generation or two ago, science had ‘failed’ to produce a machine that could replicate even the simplest calculations of which the human brain is capable. A century back, it had ‘failed’ even to cause a solid object to levitate or fly. Half a millennium before that, science (of the occidental variety at least) had ‘failed’ to establish that the earth and its neighbouring planets moved around the sun.

Discovery and observation of events and phenomena IS what science is all about. Chasing rabbit holes is part of that process. Holding up a rabbit hole and claiming it's an answer is not science.

Quote:

Riddler wrote (Post 503288)
That last one was particularly significant, because the untapped potential for reasoned investigation gave legitimacy to a wholly uninformed supposition which was just plain wrong. The rectification opened up questions about the entire validity of supposedly divine 'truths'. So the exception to the statement, ‘unfulfilled potential does not equate to failure’ must be when progress ceases to be sought, and erroneous thought is allowed to flourish unchallenged.

I've never said "cease and desist". I'm all for discovery and observation. The problem I have is claiming midstream that "We've swum the English Channel!!" ...or worse, the Atlantic.

Quote:

Riddler wrote (Post 503288)
So there is really no reason to despair at what scientific investigation has hitherto been able to achieve. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Achieve? That's my problem right there. Big problem. more later...

As long as the "will" is led by the "way" and not visa versa. I suspect these days the way is led more often by the will, using putty, glue, and duct tape.

Math and models fail. If it ain't applied all youz gotz iz is certain error.

Irreligious 07-02-2008 06:58 AM

Missionary, you are not discussing science; you are trying your damnedest to discredit it, and only because you perceive it to be a threat to your theology. That couldn't be more obvious.

Missionary 07-02-2008 07:11 AM

Quote:

antix wrote (Post 503293)
Sadder still that he insists that since science does not make 100% absolute claims, it cannot be used as knowledge.

That's not my claim. My claim is simple. If we can observe, test, measure, repeat we have something to look at. Interpretations and opinions may vary until it correlates with other data that is observed, tested, measured, repeated.

Building stories around unknowns and calling them facts of the moment to fill the gaps of the unknown is putty, glue, and duct tape...not answers to get all dogmatic about and defend.

Quote:

antix wrote (Post 503293)
Yet at the same time, he claims he knows with 100% absolute certainty that God not only exists, but his particular interpretation of God is the correct one. Nothing hypocritical about this fundie.

Hey, the evidence was dropped in my lap. There's no way I can deny it or explain it away. You haven't acknowledged the evidence you've seen...what else can I say? I know what I know with 100% certainty.

Quote:

antix wrote (Post 503293)
I would wager a guess that Mish is afraid of science. Afraid that by learning and continuing to learn via the scientific method (as opposed to the "let's see what the bible says" method) that his faith will be lose credibility and even dimish into obscurity.

You're way wrong. God created everything science discovers and observes. So, I stand in AWE of whats found. You seem to be under the impression science "achieves" something.

All science does is find stuff, look at it, talk about it, and tries to figure out how it works and where it came from.

That's not to be confused with the application of science in technology and manufacturing. Is man made stuff beneficial? Sure. It's convenient and helpful for comfort, entertainment, productivity, and even health. Those are all byproducts of science, not science. Science in and of itself is not a production mechanism for consumables.

Just so we're straight.

Missionary 07-02-2008 07:14 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 503308)
Missionary, you are not discussing science; you are trying your damnedest to discredit it, and only because you perceive it to be a threat to your theology. That couldn't be more obvious.

The only threat science produces is to YOU. I could care less if geneticists force birth a blonde Swede from a monkey living in a mars colony. You are the only one in danger here.

Kate 07-02-2008 07:20 AM

http://blog.petegraham.co.uk/wp-cont...ace_monkey.jpg

Mog 07-02-2008 07:22 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503311)
The only threat science produces is to YOU. I could care less if geneticists force birth a blonde Swede from a monkey living in a mars colony. You are the only one in danger here.

Hateful words from a man of god here. We're just trying to lead you out of the false light that your religion promises and into true enlightenment.

Single Serving Jack 07-02-2008 07:24 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503310)
Hey, the evidence was dropped in my lap. There's no way I can deny it or explain it away. You haven't acknowledged the evidence you've seen...what else can I say? I know what I know with 100% certainty.

So what's the evidence then? Just because you can't explain it away doesn't mean it can't be. Just because you know with 100% certainty doesn't mean you're right. There are plenty of people who know with 100% certainty something that contradicts that which you know with 100% certainty - at least one opinion is wrong.

Missionary 07-02-2008 07:28 AM

You're buying onto the delusion. Puffed up little mankind with a big head of knowledge replacing truth with self achievement. Pat yourself on the back.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 (NKJV)


9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Missionary 07-02-2008 07:30 AM

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503314)
So what's the evidence then?

We both have the same identical evidence. You've chosen to dismiss it and explain it away with theories of uncertainty.

Mog 07-02-2008 07:32 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503316)
You're buying onto the delusion. Puffed up little mankind with a big head of knowledge replacing truth with self achievement. Pat yourself on the back.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 (NKJV)


9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

You do realize that if Satan chose to create a false religion, he'd make the same claim right?

Irreligious 07-02-2008 07:35 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503311)
The only threat science produces is to YOU. I could care less if geneticists force birth a blonde Swede from a monkey living in a mars colony. You are the only one in danger here.

Dial it back a notch. Science can be used for good or evil. No one is disputing that. But it is the only method we have for testing reality. We can't do that with the stuff you've been trying to push on this forum and you refuse to acknowledge that, so it pisses you off something fierce.

I don't have to defend science-- admittedly, I am ill-equipped, anyway. But it obviously yields results, or I wouldn't be communicating with you now, certainly not in the amazing way that I am now. I turn on my computer and it works. You can't say that for prayer. Of course, you'll dispute that, but you can never demonstrate that it works or even begin to explain the alleged mechanics of how it's supposed to work.

Single Serving Jack 07-02-2008 07:37 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503317)
We both have the same identical evidence. You've chosen to dismiss it and explain it away with theories of uncertainty.

Oh I see! That's actually pretty funny.

Philboid Studge 07-02-2008 08:35 AM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503319)
You do realize that if Satan chose to create a false religion, he'd make the same claim right?

Sure, but he was the Prince of Lies. Or anyway that's what Mission's BFF claimed. What if the Bad Guy was such an excellent liar that He got people to believe that the real Good Guy was Satan? Now I don't know who to believe!

Kate 07-02-2008 08:41 AM

http://www.scotlands-enchanting-king...sed-monkey.jpg

Rocketman the Sequel 07-02-2008 08:53 AM

Sigh....

I'm going to do this once and then...knowing full well that it isn't going to work I'll probably try again after when this fucknut pisses me off again.

Number one: Sex makes sense. By having sexual reproduction you potentially double the rate of mutation and thus increase the rate of adaptation. Increasing the rate of adaptation feedback into itself to create more offspring and thereby selects for sexual reproduction.

Asexual reproduction is faster than sexual reproduction.

In situations where there is no extreme environmental pressure, asexual reproduction will produce more offspring, but those offspring will have a lower rate of genetic change than the sexual reproducers.

So when a higher environmental stress level is introduced, one that requires a greater level of genetic change to compensate—then the sexual reproducers can have an advantage.

End of explanation.

It is distinctly possible that an organism can use both sexual and asexual reproduction:

“Some species alternate between the sexual and asexual strategies, an ability known as heterogamy, depending on conditions. For example, the freshwater crustacean Daphnia reproduces by parthenogenesis in the spring to rapidly populate ponds, then switches to sexual reproduction as the intensity of competition and predation increases.”

This from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

Funny how I wronte the first part and lo when I went looking for some support—daphnia shows up on the first page googled.

Amazing.

Now as to your prophecy bit---you know con artists have been doing cold reads as long as there have been fucking palms to read.

Just because your con artists happened to write it down and put the seal of “god” on it –just means that they were very smart con artists—not that the con was real.

I really wish I didn’t get what people like you were all about Miss.

I wish I could chalk you up to some kind of aberration that I can understand. But I do understand you.

You are a prat who resists any movement from the concept of heriarchies. You need the man on top. And when the man on top aint good enough—you need the invisible tripartite man on top.

And it isn’t because of any true perception of divinity. It’s because you need a pablum version of reality to choke down because the real thing is too hard to digest.

It is too much work for you.

It shows daily how far away from the center of reality you actually are. It isn’t about you—so you need the big man in the sky to keep reassuring you that you are good enough, smart enough, special enough—cause ‘he” is on your side.

No reason? Hey god gives you one.

No purpose? Hey god gives you one?

Feeling blue? Take three aspects of the holy holy and call everyone else in the morning to give them the “good news”.

It manages to be infuriating and utterly pathetic at the same time.

And on top of that-you are so utterly smug about your ignorance.

The equivalent of an especially annoying five year old who is competely sure that his dad’s car is actually a transformer.

Or worse, a mentally challenged internet poster who is sure his god is the god.

Where is the fucking burden of your evidence asshole?

You have some questionable coincidences and the word of a bunch of pastoral primatives—and we have our own eyes and reason and a process that purposefully weeds out the deadwood in a perpetual process of renewal and reassessment.

But you can’t even follow your own stated beliefs long enough not to bear false witness about the evidence at hand.

So not only are you ignorant—you are also a pretty poor assed example of what a follower of your god is supposed to be.

And that’s why you are wasting your time here.

Because even if you have managed to fool yourself into thinking you have a valid point—no one else here buys it.

Fucking empty pinatas for christ.

Please!

Single Serving Jack 07-02-2008 08:56 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503317)
We both have the same identical evidence. You've chosen to dismiss it and explain it away with theories of uncertainty.

So... what method do you use to evaluate the evidence? I mean obviously it's not the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, etc. What gives you that 100% certainty?

Choobus 07-02-2008 08:59 AM

if you're prepared to simply decide that you are definitely right you can be 100% certain about it.....

Single Serving Jack 07-02-2008 08:59 AM

Quote:

Rocketman the Sequel wrote (Post 503343)
It is distinctly possible that an organism can use both sexual and asexual reproduction:

Strawberry plants! See I KNEW all that book learnin' would pay off some day :D

Tenspace 07-02-2008 09:01 AM

Dear Missionary,

Instead of fisking your last post, I'm going to suggest a fresh start. It is apparent that you do not accept evolutionary theory as the cornerstone of biology, like 99.85% of America's earth and life scientists.(1)

If you want to discuss the validity of evolution, instead of attempting to derail an entire branch of science based on a single unknown, let's do it in another thread. Give me some time to organize my notes, and we can discuss.


(1) religioustolerance.org, Why Biological and Geological Scientists Generally Support an Old Earth, and the Theory of Evolution, and Why Many Conservative Protestants Disagree - B.A. Robinson, 2004, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

Riddler 07-02-2008 10:31 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote (Post 503348)
... like 99.85% of America's earth and life scientists.(1)

(1) religioustolerance.org, Why Biological and Geological Scientists Generally Support an Old Earth, and the Theory of Evolution, and Why Many Conservative Protestants Disagree - B.A. Robinson, 2004, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

Very interesting, Thanks for that :thumbsup:

Particularly interesting that the Creation myth is largely an American thing. I wonder why.

cf the vast majority of Christian professionals in the UK, who seem to be having none of it. (97% against the seven-day wonder; 80% against Adam & Eve.) Are they not reading the same Bible? You have to wonder if God is whispering different information to them just for a laugh, don't you?

Missionary: what's your take on this? Forgive me if I missed your relevant post, but where do you stand with regard to the above points?

I also eagerly await your own statement on why there are two sexes. Why did God make Adam and Eve, instead of Adam and Steve?

Missionary 07-02-2008 10:32 AM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503319)
You do realize that if Satan chose to create a false religion, he'd make the same claim right?

That's exactly what he did with many newer religions centuries after this was written.

Missionary 07-02-2008 10:45 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 503322)
Dial it back a notch. Science can be used for good or evil. No one is disputing that. But it is the only method we have for testing reality. We can't do that with the stuff you've been trying to push on this forum and you refuse to acknowledge that, so it pisses you off something fierce.

I don't have to defend science-- admittedly, I am ill-equipped, anyway. But it obviously yields results, or I wouldn't be communicating with you now, certainly not in the amazing way that I am now. I turn on my computer and it works. You can't say that for prayer. Of course, you'll dispute that, but you can never demonstrate that it works or even begin to explain the alleged mechanics of how it's supposed to work.

Think about it...you've got:

fire-wheel-horse
steam engine-combustible engine -plane-jet-rocket
electricity-lamp-telegraph/phone- radio/tv- computer
improvement in medicine
improvement in telescope/microscope
more info than 150 years ago

You really think you've explained away/replaced God?

You're running with a big head of knowledge that may or may not be factual or accurate. You have modern conveniences and some nifty gadgets. You can travel much faster than a horse and buggy. You can watch 500 tv channels. You can knock down the flu in days.

But don't kid yourself. They don't know where the universe or life originated. They think they do, and that's all they're selling...a belief system.

Missionary 07-02-2008 10:56 AM

Quote:

Rocketman the Sequel wrote (Post 503343)
Sigh....

I'm going to do this once and then...knowing full well that it isn't going to work I'll probably try again after when this fucknut pisses me off again.

Number one: Sex makes sense. By having sexual reproduction you potentially double the rate of mutation and thus increase the rate of adaptation. Increasing the rate of adaptation feedback into itself to create more offspring and thereby selects for sexual reproduction.

Asexual reproduction is faster than sexual reproduction.

In situations where there is no extreme environmental pressure, asexual reproduction will produce more offspring, but those offspring will have a lower rate of genetic change than the sexual reproducers.

So when a higher environmental stress level is introduced, one that requires a greater level of genetic change to compensate—then the sexual reproducers can have an advantage.

End of explanation.

It is distinctly possible that an organism can use both sexual and asexual reproduction:

“Some species alternate between the sexual and asexual strategies, an ability known as heterogamy, depending on conditions. For example, the freshwater crustacean Daphnia reproduces by parthenogenesis in the spring to rapidly populate ponds, then switches to sexual reproduction as the intensity of competition and predation increases.”

This from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

Funny how I wronte the first part and lo when I went looking for some support—daphnia shows up on the first page googled.

Amazing.

Now as to your prophecy bit---you know con artists have been doing cold reads as long as there have been fucking palms to read.

Just because your con artists happened to write it down and put the seal of “god” on it –just means that they were very smart con artists—not that the con was real.

I really wish I didn’t get what people like you were all about Miss.

I wish I could chalk you up to some kind of aberration that I can understand. But I do understand you.

You are a prat who resists any movement from the concept of heriarchies. You need the man on top. And when the man on top aint good enough—you need the invisible tripartite man on top.

And it isn’t because of any true perception of divinity. It’s because you need a pablum version of reality to choke down because the real thing is too hard to digest.

It is too much work for you.

It shows daily how far away from the center of reality you actually are. It isn’t about you—so you need the big man in the sky to keep reassuring you that you are good enough, smart enough, special enough—cause ‘he” is on your side.

No reason? Hey god gives you one.

No purpose? Hey god gives you one?

Feeling blue? Take three aspects of the holy holy and call everyone else in the morning to give them the “good news”.

It manages to be infuriating and utterly pathetic at the same time.

And on top of that-you are so utterly smug about your ignorance.

The equivalent of an especially annoying five year old who is competely sure that his dad’s car is actually a transformer.

Or worse, a mentally challenged internet poster who is sure his god is the god.

Where is the fucking burden of your evidence asshole?

You have some questionable coincidences and the word of a bunch of pastoral primatives—and we have our own eyes and reason and a process that purposefully weeds out the deadwood in a perpetual process of renewal and reassessment.

But you can’t even follow your own stated beliefs long enough not to bear false witness about the evidence at hand.

So not only are you ignorant—you are also a pretty poor assed example of what a follower of your god is supposed to be.

And that’s why you are wasting your time here.

Because even if you have managed to fool yourself into thinking you have a valid point—no one else here buys it.

Fucking empty pinatas for christ.

Please!

Nice display of collected thoughts up top to a typical atheist meltdown and emotional outburst at the bottom. How predictable. The similarities you guys bear to one another is remarkable.

As for your assertions concerning sex. That's really all they are. There just isn't any scientific evidence to support the explanations. So far, they just have speculative opinions and theories. That's pretty much it.

If that's all it takes...just to project an idea that makes sense to you? What the heck do we need the scientific method for? We might as well toss it out and just go with whatever sounds best.

Missionary 07-02-2008 11:05 AM

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503344)
So... what method do you use to evaluate the evidence? I mean obviously it's not the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, etc. What gives you that 100% certainty?

Christians and Atheists are looking to the same scientific sources to answer two separate fixed questions. Your question is just as fixed as mine.

Your question is:How did all this originate and what are the mechanisms?

My question is: What mechanisms did God use to create all this?

Science leans on your question and interprets its answers assuming no Creator was involved. Therefore, it rejects a creation event and must attempt to explain the evidence in a fashion that big bangs the universe and gradually introduces life. Somehow these major events , they explain, were caused by unknown forces, chain reactions, random mutations, blah, blah.

These are speculative interpretations and conjecture of unknown events that were not observed by science. Period. But, they're selling like hotcakes.

Missionary 07-02-2008 11:26 AM

Quote:

Riddler wrote (Post 503358)
Very interesting, Thanks for that :thumbsup:

Particularly interesting that the Creation myth is largely an American thing. I wonder why.

cf the vast majority of Christian professionals in the UK, who seem to be having none of it. (97% against the seven-day wonder; 80% against Adam & Eve.) Are they not reading the same Bible? You have to wonder if God is whispering different information to them just for a laugh, don't you?

Missionary: what's your take on this? Forgive me if I missed your relevant post, but where do you stand with regard to the above points?

I also eagerly await your own statement on why there are two sexes. Why did God make Adam and Eve, instead of Adam and Steve?

What's left of the old order Euro churches are predominately liberal theology-biblical minimalists. American churches run the gamut, but more fundamentalist theology-biblical maximalists exist here.

Adam and Eve? Real simple. Unity of oneness. Together a man and wife become one whole person, procreate, thus they complete their purpose to illustrate the image of God.

Kate 07-02-2008 11:32 AM

http://www.rrpolitics.org/Ernest%20H...SackofShit.jpg

Irreligious 07-02-2008 11:33 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503375)
Christians and Atheists are looking to the same scientific sources to answer two separate fixed questions. Your question is just as fixed as mine.

Your question is:How did all this originate and what are the mechanisms?

My question is: What mechanisms did God use to create all this?

Science leans on your question and interprets its answers assuming no Creator was involved. Therefore, it rejects a creation event and must attempt to explain the evidence in a fashion that big bangs the universe and gradually introduces life. Somehow these major events , they explain, were caused by unknown forces, chain reactions, random mutations, blah, blah.

These are speculative interpretations and conjecture of unknown events that were not observed by science. Period. But, they're selling like hotcakes.

I think you're getting this backwards, Missionary. Your religion assumes a creator. Science does not even speak to your assumption. In the absence of any evidence of a creator, it would be dishonest of science to do anything else.

So get it right. You and your ilk are doing all the assuming here. And you even go those assumptions a step further by stating them as settled fact.

Single Serving Jack 07-02-2008 11:37 AM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503375)
Christians and Atheists are looking to the same scientific sources to answer two separate fixed questions. Your question is just as fixed as mine.

Your question is:How did all this originate and what are the mechanisms?

My question is: What mechanisms did God use to create all this?

Science leans on your question and interprets its answers assuming no Creator was involved. Therefore, it rejects a creation event and must attempt to explain the evidence in a fashion that big bangs the universe and gradually introduces life. Somehow these major events , they explain, were caused by unknown forces, chain reactions, random mutations, blah, blah.

These are speculative interpretations and conjecture of unknown events that were not observed by science. Period. But, they're selling like hotcakes.

That's all lovely and wonderful, and correct really, because science by definition is based on experimentation and observations of the natural world and so says nothing about the supernatural, other than removing any need for it. It wouldn't be science if it didn't (and it'd be useless if it did).

But you didn't answer my question. What method do you use to judge the evidence if not the scientific one? What gives you that 100% certainty you so proudly claim to have? In asking your question, "What mechanisms did God use to create all this?", you are assuming God exists before you even begin. Why?

Choobus 07-02-2008 11:47 AM

Dudes, please don't quote the missionary's position. I was enjoying not reading his brain rotting drivel......

Kate 07-02-2008 11:56 AM

teh Boones! teh Boones!!

Choobus 07-02-2008 12:00 PM

:lol:

Missionary 07-02-2008 12:56 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 503389)
I think you're getting this backwards, Missionary. Your religion assumes a creator. Science does not even speak to your assumption. In the absence of any evidence of a creator, it would be dishonest of science to do anything else.

So get it right. You and your ilk are doing all the assuming here. And you even go those assumptions a step further by stating them as settled fact.

That's what I said. Try reading instead of reading into.

But no, there's no assumption except on your part. You assume there is no Creator while I know for certain there is. Now, sciences denial of a the Creator is a relatively new position. In fact, most all of the scientists throughout history looked at scientific knowledge and discovery just as I do.

So, get it straight and don't be trying to rewrite the history books.

Missionary 07-02-2008 01:00 PM

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503390)
That's all lovely and wonderful, and correct really, because science by definition is based on experimentation and observations of the natural world and so says nothing about the supernatural, other than removing any need for it. It wouldn't be science if it didn't (and it'd be useless if it did).

Like I said, that's a fairly new position. Scientists throughout history looked at science as a discovery of God's work in creation.

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503390)
But you didn't answer my question. What method do you use to judge the evidence if not the scientific one? What gives you that 100% certainty you so proudly claim to have? In asking your question, "What mechanisms did God use to create all this?", you are assuming God exists before you even begin. Why?

Well, I look at the same articles and papers you read. However, I have to filter evidence from opinion, facts from speculation. It's not all that difficult.

What mechanisms? I don't know yet. There's way too much yet to learn and discover. Why, you in a hurry to close the books and claim victory for mankind?

Single Serving Jack 07-02-2008 01:13 PM

Still not answering the question. Dodge, dodge, dodge...

Why are you assuming the existence of God? Science says nothing either way, even though you are desperate to claim 'science denies a Creator' - it doesn't. At best it denies the need for a Creator.

For the third (I think) time I ask - where does your 100% certainty about the existence of God come from? What makes it 100% certain, without any possibility of doubt for you?

antix 07-02-2008 01:18 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503375)
Christians and Atheists are looking to the same scientific sources to answer two separate fixed questions. Your question is just as fixed as mine.

Your question is:How did all this originate and what are the mechanisms?

My question is: What mechanisms did God use to create all this?

The questions are not on equal footing. But you're too stupid to know why your question is doomed form the start. Your question is asked by retards who are afraid they aren't special enough of God doesn't exist. Just remember, you ought to be careful about trying to discover God's methods. According to your favorite anthology this God character gets mighty pissed when his creations try to obtain knowledge of him.

Quote:

Science leans on your question and interprets its answers assuming no Creator was involved. Therefore, it rejects a creation event and must attempt to explain the evidence in a fashion that big bangs the universe and gradually introduces life. Somehow these major events , they explain, were caused by unknown forces, chain reactions, random mutations, blah, blah.
You imply that science is "out to disprove God" Your fear of science invalidating your best buddy in the sky is obvious to everyone but you. But then, usually heroin addicts don't know that they have a problem either.

Quote:

These are speculative interpretations and conjecture of unknown events that were not observed by science. Period. But, they're selling like hotcakes.
You seem to be the only one who is afraid that people consider them to be 100% fact. The rest of us sit back, wait for those who are performing the experiments and looking at the data, and see what they find out. Once those experiments give scientists an idea about what might be happening-- or what might have happened in the past-- we say:

"Wow. that's pretty interesting. If that turns out to be accurate, I wonder what new inventions or discoveries it might lead to next..."

while you, on the other hand, seem to be saying:

"OMG :o They're trying to prove God doesn't exist!!!!! Well I got news for em... I know for a FACT that God exists. No science is going to ruin MY fairy tales!"


Sorry, Choobus. I couldn't help myself :blush: Too much coffee perhaps.

Choobus 07-02-2008 01:22 PM

Quote:

antix wrote (Post 503424)


Sorry, Choobus. I couldn't help myself :blush: Too much coffee perhaps.

It's the road traffic accident syndrome. Sometimes these douchebags write things of such monumental idiocy that one just can't resist reacting to it. It's one of the characteristics of a megacunt (not you, the stupendously stupid shitsucker whose dildonic drivel can't be avoided)

Kate 07-02-2008 01:25 PM

Shall I pour the wine now?

Tenspace 07-02-2008 01:31 PM

Quote:

Nice display of collected thoughts up top to a typical atheist meltdown and emotional outburst at the bottom. How predictable. The similarities you guys bear to one another is remarkable.
Francis? :o:

ProveIt 07-02-2008 02:01 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503204)
I'm sure mods can always delete threads that are spam. Or lock them and put them in a special spam forum. They can even move troll/bait-argument starting threads there.

However, if you're afraid of a theist blowing up your belief system because of it's frailty ...I suggest you reevaluate your belief system as opposed to playing thought police and thread censor.

This thread topic is legit. And it's a major threat to evolution. In fact, it could prove to be the sinking of the whole ship.

I'm not "afraid" of anything... I'm tiring of reading your drivel...

FYI "belief" and "faith" are not a part of my life or my vocabulary. They are made up concepts to soothe your ever retarding mind.

Missionary 07-02-2008 02:38 PM

Quote:

Single Serving Jack wrote (Post 503421)
Still not answering the question. Dodge, dodge, dodge...

Why are you assuming the existence of God? Science says nothing either way, even though you are desperate to claim 'science denies a Creator' - it doesn't. At best it denies the need for a Creator.

For the third (I think) time I ask - where does your 100% certainty about the existence of God come from? What makes it 100% certain, without any possibility of doubt for you?

I don't assume the existence of God. He intervened in my life...showed up one day. I had a God encounter and He saved me. Gave me eternal life and His Holy Spirit. Transformed my life. Now I have a relationship with Him.

ProveIt 07-02-2008 02:42 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503453)
I don't assume the existence of God. He intervened in my life...showed up one day. I had a God encounter and He saved me. Gave me eternal life and His Holy Spirit. Transformed my life. Now I have a relationship with Him.

Just because a stranger offers you a Lifesaver doesn't mean you've been saved... And random fondling by said stranger does not a relationship make...

zer0 07-02-2008 04:28 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503235)
I'm no genetic biologist. I'll leave the terms to you.

That should be the only thing Missionary says in this entire thread. It would've saved 6+ pages of torment reading the same arguments.

Mog 07-02-2008 04:34 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503453)
I don't assume the existence of God. He intervened in my life...showed up one day. I had a God encounter and He saved me. Gave me eternal life and His Holy Spirit. Transformed my life. Now I have a relationship with Him.

It appears that you lack the capability to be critical of your own experiences. If you were critical, you'd be open to the idea that this "god" you experienced could be merely the manifestation of your own consciousness. This is why your experiences are not proof of the existence of God.

Choobus 07-02-2008 04:45 PM

Quote:

zer0 wrote (Post 503482)
That should be the only thing Missionary says in this entire thread. It would've saved 6+ pages of torment reading the same arguments.

This is all he needed to say:

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know how much of a tool I look

But I do know my god on a cross
And I know if he weren't made up dross
What a wonderful world this would be

Kate 07-02-2008 06:14 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...reallydull.png

Barney 07-02-2008 06:51 PM

Missionary. Why did Adam have a penis? And why diddnt God circumsise it?

Missionary 07-02-2008 08:07 PM

Quote:

Barney wrote (Post 503506)
Missionary. 1) Why did Adam have a penis? 2) And why diddnt God circumsise it?

1)Obviously for procreation.
2)That was a covenant made with Abraham

Missionary 07-02-2008 08:09 PM

Quote:

zer0 wrote (Post 503482)
That should be the only thing Missionary says in this entire thread. It would've saved 6+ pages of torment reading the same arguments.

So you deny the the complete lack of any evidence in regards to evolutionary sexual reproduction?

Mog 07-02-2008 08:16 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503521)
So you deny the the complete lack of any evidence in regards to evolutionary sexual reproduction?

Do you deny the enjoyment of giving loaded questions?

Missionary 07-02-2008 08:17 PM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503484)
It appears that you lack the capability to be critical of your own experiences. If you were critical, you'd be open to the idea that this "god" you experienced could be merely the manifestation of your own consciousness. This is why your experiences are not proof of the existence of God.

I understand that it's not proof to you. It's not intended to be.

It's a testimony that you dismiss along with millions of like testimonies. The testimonies are intended to supplement the proof and calling which is provided by God. You know, like "I got the call and they said, 'You're APPROVED!'" Collectively they represent God's entire work to reach mankind. You choose to dismiss them all together.

That's what free will is all about. However, no matter how forcefully you claim, "Not good enough!" I assure you it will be presented as the body of evidence at judgment.

We're all guilty, Mog. We all deserve the death penalty. Look at the world, it's corrupted and depraved. Evil exists and we're smack dab in the middle of it. God is offering a full pardon free of charge.

Mog 07-02-2008 08:19 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503523)
I understand that it's not proof to you. It's not intended to be.

It's a testimony that you dismiss along with millions of like testimonies. The testimonies are intended to supplement the proof and calling which is provided by God. Collectively they represent God's entire work to reach mankind. You choose to dismiss them all together.

That's what free will is all about. However, no matter how forcefully you claim, "Not good enough!" I assure you it will be presented as the body of evidence at judgment.

We're all guilty, Mog. We all deserve the death penalty. Look at the world, it's corrupted and depraved. Evil exists and we're smack dab in the middle of it. God is offering a full pardon free of charge.

What I'm stating though is that it shouldn't be proof you either. You choose to be very selectively skeptical.

Missionary 07-02-2008 08:21 PM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503522)
Do you deny the enjoyment of giving loaded questions?

If you have some evidence to stand on, present it.

Missionary 07-02-2008 08:27 PM

Quote:

Mog wrote (Post 503524)
What I'm stating though is that it shouldn't be proof you either. You choose to be very selectively skeptical.

I'm skeptical of corrupted sources. If all truth proceeds from God, He alone is trustworthy. Do a scripture search sometime using the key phrase 'wisdom of men/man' ...it's foolishness.

Unfortunately, every institution that mankind has his hands in is suspect. This is true for politics, religion, gov't, wallstreet, hollywood, industry, economics, and yes...science.

Fraud exists in grants, data manipulation, plagiarism, faked drug trials, intellectual theft and espionage, etc, etc. If you don't believe me, I have a list of links to news reports from march/april.

Missionary 07-02-2008 08:31 PM

Heck...I'll post them anyway. I haven't done an update search in a few weeks. I'll work on it...I know of two biggies I'll find and post later.


Widespread Ghostwriting of Drug Trials

Troubling questions about missile defense

Scan Uncovers Thousands of Copycat Scientific Articles

Researcher uses grants to buy flashy toys

University faces lawsuit for research (with documents)

Frog Study Leaps to Conclusions

Groups File For Revocation Of Medical Examiner’s License

Probe ordered into weather service woes

The Human Injury of Lost Objectivity: An Insider’s Look into the Corruption of Clinical Trials

Diet Soda and Lobbyists Clouded Vision of Hawaii Senate Health Chair? Aspartame

Defamation lawsuit filed by Purdue researcher
Taleyarkhan claims he created bubble fusion


Local firm accused of grant fraud
High-tech MER: U.S. complaint without merit

Barney 07-02-2008 08:33 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503520)
1)Obviously for procreation.
2)That was a covenant made with Abraham

Great.
1) Why did he create all those companions for Adam but adam still lack something. God knew he was going to create eve, so why not just create eve? In effect he created an asexual being with genitals. Eve was an afterthought.
2) Adam initially hadnt any sin. Yet he had a uncircumsised penis. Since the world was heavily populated by the time of Abe, what changed in order to make foreskins sinful? Also, whats a covenant? Its an agreement usually one way, but in biblical understanding two way. God said he would make the jews more numerous than the stars if they slashed up their cocks. When Bronze age man looked at the stars, he could see several thousand, which seemed like a fair deal. Now we know that there are trillions of stars and yet theres only 15 million jews, in a world of 6 billion. Havnt they ripped all their foreskins off for 4000 years for nothing? or was God just wrong.
Also, why does the loving perfect God require self mutilation. Why not just not create foreskins.
Since Sin is a constant, Adam is therefore sinful from the moment God breathed life into the clay and accedentily put a foreskin on him.

Eva 07-02-2008 08:37 PM

asking if adam was circumcised is as silly as asking if he had a belly button.... :)

Missionary 07-02-2008 08:43 PM

Well, that didn't take me long. Here's the latest headlines...

Honesty Not Their Policy: Science Fraud at Universities Common, Ignored

SCIENTIFIC FRAUD
There's more of it than you think


Jury: 2 drug firms owe Ala. $114M in price fraud

Researchers Fail to Reveal Full Drug Pay

DrunkMonkey 07-02-2008 08:52 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503527)
If all truth proceeds from God,

Thats a big IF.

DrunkMonkey 07-02-2008 08:55 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503527)
Fraud exists in grants, data manipulation, plagiarism, faked drug trials, intellectual theft and espionage, etc, etc. If you don't believe me, I have a list of links to news reports from march/april.

Do you know what peer-reviewed means?

DrunkMonkey 07-02-2008 09:04 PM

1) From a Student Loan Blog
2) An opinion piece from a newspaper
3) Drug companies overcharging
4) A psychiatrist hiding that he was paid by a drug company and probably went overboard in promoting drugs

The last two don't mention any cases of falsified research. The first one and the second one both reference the same study. The study says 3 cases per 100 researchers in the last year. Do you seriously think that is a big problem when most of those will probably be corrected by peer-review anyway?

Missionary 07-02-2008 09:06 PM

Quote:

Barney wrote (Post 503530)
Great.
1) Why did he create all those companions for Adam but adam still lack something. God knew he was going to create eve, so why not just create eve? In effect he created an asexual being with genitals. Eve was an afterthought.
2) Adam initially hadnt any sin. Yet he had a uncircumsised penis. Since the world was heavily populated by the time of Abe, what changed in order to make foreskins sinful? Also, whats a covenant? Its an agreement usually one way, but in biblical understanding two way. God said he would make the jews more numerous than the stars if they slashed up their cocks. When Bronze age man looked at the stars, he could see several thousand, which seemed like a fair deal. Now we know that there are trillions of stars and yet theres only 15 million jews, in a world of 6 billion. Havnt they ripped all their foreskins off for 4000 years for nothing? or was God just wrong.
Also, why does the loving perfect God require self mutilation. Why not just not create foreskins.
Since Sin is a constant, Adam is therefore sinful from the moment God breathed life into the clay and accedentily put a foreskin on him.

1) Adam wasn't aware that he had no companion or a need until he named the animals. It wasn't an afterthought for God, but a lesson for Adam.

2) Foreskins aren't sinful. All biblical covenants require the shedding of blood. You have to admit, if the mark of the covenant was to simply pin prick your finger, any poser could pretend to be in on the deal. You have to sacrifice to cutting at your wanker with a sharp stone.

However, as it turns out, circumcision has health benefits. Now, that's not something iron age desert wandering goat herders could have possibly known.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/PR00040

The sand and star reference by God is obviously figurative. You also forgot that in addition to Issac, Abraham fathered Ishmael; the patriarch to all the modern day Arab people groups. You also failed to consider that your figure of 15 million is current. How many Hebrews have lived throughout history? How many Arab people groups over the last 4000 years?

Can you number them all? Well, that's what God told Abraham, his descendents can't be numbered.

Mog 07-02-2008 09:08 PM

Quote:

Missionary wrote (Post 503527)
I'm skeptical of corrupted sources. If all truth proceeds from God, He alone is trustworthy. Do a scripture search sometime using the key phrase 'wisdom of men/man' ...it's foolishness. .

I hate to tell you this, but your very scripture may be corrupted. Again, you have selective skepticism. (actually forget the "may be" part. I know there are typographical differences between the Tanakh and the Septuagint)

Science done right is less corruptable than the scripture since its tested by millions of scientists, none of which have a common agenda.

Whereas, the people who wrote scripture has a very clear agenda, to spread itself as wide as possible.

And I might as well point out that that there is a very big "if", we can just as easily say that all lies come from god too. Didn't you yourself say that "For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."?

Missionary 07-02-2008 09:15 PM

Quote:

DrunkMonkey wrote (Post 503535)
1) From a Student Loan Blog
2) An opinion piece from a newspaper
3) Drug companies overcharging
4) A psychiatrist hiding that he was paid by a drug company and probably went overboard in promoting drugs

The last two don't mention any cases of falsified research. The first one and the second one both reference the same study. The study says 3 cases per 100 researchers in the last year. Do you seriously think that is a big problem when most of those will probably be corrected by peer-review anyway?

"About 1,000 potential incidents of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in scientific research go unreported every year, according to a survey that suggests such misconduct is far more prevalent than suspected."

"NIH research grants support an estimated 155,000 scientists. Extrapolating the survey results, the researchers estimated that the 201 instances of misconduct over three years translated into about 1,000 cases of fraud that go unreported to government or institutional officials. Research fraud happens even though the scientific community uses measures such as replicating original research, and evaluating it through a peer review system, said James Wells, a study author and director of research policy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison."


Is that what you're banking on? Self-regulation and policing? How's that working out in every other organizational body known to mankind?

You think ethics is spotless in science for some reason?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:14 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000-2013, Raving Atheists [dot] com. All rights reserved.