DarkLink2135, what do you consider a gain of genetic information?

Sorry this took me so long to reply. My sleeping schedule is totally whacked right now.

I would consider a gain of genetic information (at least the type needed to make Macroevolution a feasible possibility, meaning, the organism didn't incorporate any DNA from external biological elements that it has come into contact with, which could explain some changes, but I don't believe all), to be any meaningful, beneficial, genetic code added to an organism via natural means. Changes that add more protiens, extra physical features, more complex internal process, perhaps so it can process more food, etc.

Organisms "borrowing" genetic code from other organisms it encounters I suppose could explain some parts of Macroevolution, but I don't believe it's sufficient to explain any macroevolution forces very much beyond a microscopic level.

We don't have any evidence to support this sort of advancement in species - it's simply a conjecture based on what we see with little supporting data. I choose not to believe it based on the incredible amount of complexity involved, and the literal impossibility of such things arriving via random mutations caused by background radiation.

I might be able to see this sort of evolution happening among simpler, single-celled organisms, but even then, I find that to be a long stretch.

Is this what you were looking for?

The hardest part of macro evolution is the grasping of just how complex it is. But in tern think of just how complex we are. I mean we depend completely on all the cells doing what they are supposed to when they are supposed to. Macro evolution is mind blowing to say the least just in part to the complexity of the organisms involved. In a single cell organisms if and evolutionary change doesn't work the organism doesn't last very long and doesn't propagate. But in a multi-cell organism it can take quiet some time for that failed attempt to be weeded out if ever. Also you would never notice if a small benificial change has occured in a multi-cell organism, well not as easy as in a 1 cell. Oh my head hurts just thinking of it :S

Stop letting other people do every single bit of talking for you. It's an extremely poor way to participate in any sort of debate, and it just makes you look stupid. Posting a book or some scholarly article is not debating, it's just slapping something up in a lame attempt to make you look intelligent. If you have something to say, say it, instead of posting something I very much doubt you even begin to understand.

BasG: You move up a level by posting a bunch of spam like you just did. Although I wouldn't suggest that since it's a fast track to getting banned.

Actually that was what I was talking about. I couldn't care less about the moral implications of incest, just that there are things that can go wrong with sibling breeding. Not taking into account the fact that random mutations can occur via radiation or imperfect DNA transcription, Creationism would show that our DNA should EXACTLY be the same. But it's not. Humanity has too many genetic variations for Creationism to explain. Unless God in his almighty wisdom created eve into a totally different person with different genes, it still wouldn't explain how most of the human race doesn't have genetic problems from their kids interbreeding.

That's exactly what I explained though. Assuming we were created by God, or a God in general, I would assume we started off with perfect DNA. Over time it's gotten less and less "perfect" so to speak via various transcription errors, which results in higher chances of birth defects from interbreeding. Way back at "the beginning," there wouldn't have been such a high chance from that.

EDIT^^^ Note that this is nothing more than an unfounded, untested theory. If the human race truly started out as 2 created human beings, this is how I would explain the problem of inbreeding.

It's called backing up your claims. In some institutions (for example universities) it's actually encouraged.

If backing up your views with academic evidence is stupid then what is intelligent?

I was merely presenting you with some evidence of new genetic information. Why are you getting so worked up and making childish ad hominem attacks instead of debating the issues brought up by the paper? If I were debating with someone over masculinity in John Woo films and they showed me an article about it, I would focus my attention on the article rather than attacking the person for not coming up with an entire theory on their own without any outside influences.

So are you actually going to make a case against the article or continue to cover your ears while blasting people for bringing it to your attention?

Kinkymagic's been doing most of the talking on his own in this thread. He posted a link to sources which back up his claims and cannot be derided for doing so. If anything, "DarkLink," you are the one who's cruisin' for a bruisin' here.

The difference is you haven't made any claims. You've just posted a link. I've seen far too many people get away with that in the past, because they are too afraid to throw themselves into the fray.

Backing up claims with scholarly articles is absolutely great, if you have any claims to begin with. And no, saying "I believe X, here's why (hyperlink)" doesn't count.

And there are many fossils that were found showing many transformations. To expect there to be a fossil for every conceivable transformation is preposterous. We're lucky to have as many transitional fossils as we do considering the very slim chances animal skeletons had of being fossilized. A gap in a fossil record does not indicate there was a God in the least; it indicates that either A) the fossil is yet to be found or B) the animal never made it to the fossilization process to begin with.

Great job quoting THE WRONG PERSON.

Additional Spam:

I counted one meaningful contribution to the thread:
http://www.gamingforce.com/forums/po...ost425117.html

And even then he used a link to do his debating for him. I'm more than happy to debate with a person, I find it enjoyable and intellectually stimulating, but I'm not going to sit around and read an entire article to search for what they specifically wanted to point out because they are too lazy to do their own debating.

And yet you still have not actually done made any critique of the scientific articles that profess to offer evidence for macro-evolution. Why not?

So far you have asked for evidence of macro-evolution and new genetic information, only to ignore it when it is presented to you and instead have chosen to attack the people who have given it to you.

Darwin's theory sounds more logical to me than the Bible.
I think that everyone started at zero. Higher life forms have evolved from lesser ones. Why should humans be an exception?

I'm not debating with a lazy person. If you want to actually present an argument and then use those to back yourself up, then I'm more than happy to talk about macroevolution.

For someone who seems so hesitant to actually offer up any meaningful discussion, you sure seem to want others to take quite a bit of time out of their day.

I'm not asking you to debate with me, but with the evidences presented. So can you actually critique the examples, yes or no, and if you can what is your reasoning for not doing so other than the fact that you don't like the person who posted them?

Oh, now I understand the problem. It's not all that stuff you said about me twisting your words or not reading what you say at all.

Random mutations happen all the time without 'background radiation' having anything to do with it. Random mutations in skin cells is what causes the elderly to have wrinkles, and random mutations in other tissue causes cancer.

Background radiation. Wow.

Anyway, DarkLink, you did ask for evidence and to be educated. Why are you throwing a fit when education is presented to you? You should thank the kind man for his reading suggestions and continue to further educate yourself. To do anything else is tacky, really.

What are the moral reasons? I'm not familiar with that aspect. I always assumed it was socialization, but now that I think about it, I can't recall any explanation beyond genetic defects (which have to do with inbreeding, not incest) and, "ew, gross, that's your mom." Now, socialization is obviously the cause of your disgust, but apparently even when social pressure works the other way, there is disinterest between members of the same household (who are not necessarily related), so it's largely an issue of instinct. So I ask again, what are the moral reasons?

I definately don't think that the theory of evolution is more plausible than any other. In fact, its not more plausible than that of Creationism. People are happy to dismiss Creationism as they don't want to consider a higher power, and are happy to believe something which still has no scientific proof ie Evolution. All evoltuion is based on is this ridiculous time span where everything is meant to have happened...ofcourse, no one can dispute anything about it as no one has lived millions of years. So frankly, I think its just pure ignorance that people can dismiss Creationism because there is 'no scientific proof'..which, in fact, does exist...except that its the same with Evolution, when it comes down to it, no one was there.

That’s odd, because from what I remember that evolution by natural selection has always been backed up by multidisciplinary science (such as astronomy and geology, and more directly in biology), but generally are disinterested actually proving evolution, but the evidence simply coincided.

The problem with creationism is simply that, it isn’t science. It is base on the claim of religious text from a specific religion. As a dogma, this claim simply does not subject itself to the self correcting mechanism to better understand the physical universe that of which we called the “Scientific method”. Perhaps it would further individual’s understanding of the “supernatural” or “spiritual” universe, but that has no bearing on science that should deal with the “natural” world. Further more, I personally think if creationism base on one religious dogma is given its run in school, we might as well put in the rest of them, like how the humanity is actually created by a Chinese Snake Goddess name Nuwa, or perhaps we go with Hinduism or certain Buddhist view of circular existence where beginning and end doesn’t actually exist and universe is an illusion.

If it is true that we were perfect in the beginning and somehow became less perfect via transcription errors, the human race should have started degenerating a long time ago or become extinct. Becoming "not perfect" is not a good sign in the natural world. And if you say that transcription errors DO occur then you concede that genes CAN mutate. Either evolution has happened throughout the history of the earth (natural selection) or in your creationist theory evolution will happen because of these imperfections.

Just the example of the different skin colors cannot be explained without some sort of evolutionary process, or did Adam and Eve have multi colored babies as well?

I could, but I'm not going to. I've got loads of other things that I need to read rather than an article you posted. Don't let the internet do your thinking for you. I'm debating with the evidences presented because you haven't offered up any debate in the first place. If you can't think for yourself there's no reason for me to debate w/ you or anything you post.

I think you are perfectly well capable of making very intelligent debate just based on posts I have read of yours, and I'm clueless as to why you won't.

I glanced through the links and while they are interesting, I also find it interesting that you encouraging people to just post links and not debate. Last time I tried to do that here I got reamed for it, so I avoid it now. I used to think it was a decent way of debating, but I realize better now.

Yet another example of you twisting my words. Either you exist on these boards simply to mess around with debates or you really have no reading comprehension at all. Or perhaps I'm just not explicitly stating enough things. It's beginning to get very irritating. I gave a single example of what sometimes does cause background mutations. I'm not sure why you automatically think that I am saying that's the only thing I believe causes mutations.

Wrinkles aren't caused in most cases by random mutations. Parts of wrinkling are caused by sun damage from UV radiation, sure, but that isn't the major cause. I have no idea where the hell you are getting all your information, because it's bizzare. Wrinkles are caused because with normal aging, less epidermal cells are produced. Because of this, moisture can't be kept in as effectively, which causes dry skin. There's damage to most layers of the skin, less collagen is produced, the fibers that provide elasticity wear out, etc. I can't remember all that goes on at the moment, but basically the skin sort of "breaks down" in function. Fat cells decrease in size, which means they can't fill in all the damage that happens to the other layers of the skin.

Cancer CAN be caused, among other things, by mutated genes, but we don't know, at least that I know, what causes them to mutate in all cases. Sometimes people are born with these mutated genes, sometimes not. I would certainly think that "background radiation" could lead to this. Too much UV radiation causes skin cancer.

I'm not sure why you think there aren't any. Society sort of creates it's own morals as it goes, incest being one of the taboos. I cannot, for one, give you any distinct reason as to why it is immoral other than society's views of it, but I don't think there is any doubt that it's an immoral act.

Like I said, it's an unfounded theory that I really haven't thought about much. Regardless, you have to remember this is based on what is ultimately faith, and while I hate to do it, I can alway resort to the "God made it do that" answer :p. Scientifically speaking though, I suppose genetic decay could be modeled from the beginning via a more exponential curve rather than straight up linear. I also never said genes couldn't mutate - I did say that I don't believe we have any reason to believe they can mutate in meaningful ways that will pass on to the next generation. Is it possible? In my opinion, I'd say no due to what literally amounts as mathmatically impossible odds.

Also evolution does not happen via the forces of natural selection. Natural selection describes a process whereby the gene pool DECREASES, not increases. The classic example of long and short-necked giraffes - gradually the short-necked gene gets weeded out. I'm sure that for awhile it would remain a recessive gene, but after a long enough time, this would disappear. Note that I do not know little about hereditary-related parts of evolution. I believe that over time recessive genes DO disappear, but they could remain in the body. Anybody who knows this for sure, please do speak up.

Skin color I would say, that over time, people's melanin production gradually increased or decreased with a population's sun exposure. I really do not know though.

And I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to convince me that the Creationist theory is wrong, than you may as well give up now. I imagine most people on these boards are at an age where their views aren't going to be changed much, if at all. The point of a debate when you are at that point is to simply make the other party think a bit. You have made me think but I'm not entirely sure that's what your point is. And that matter is simply because ultimately, Creationism at it's core relies on faith. I know I can't scientifically explain away every last aspect of the theory, and I'm not going to try.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I think I may end up ducking out of this debate. It's been incredibly fun, and enlightening, but I've pushed this topic beyond it's normal lifespan, and I sense people are starting getting pissed just simply because of what I believe. I'm getting pissed because I'm having to explain things that should be evidently clear. If this goes too much further it's going to erupt into a flame war. People have basically said all they are going to say, and I'm spending most of my post reiterating what I've already said.

Define "beneficial" and explain why this particular kind of genetic code is somehow different from other types to make it impossible to obtain.

Some causes of genetic mutation:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units...mutationbg.cfm

It's pointless. Unless you did all the research and wrote up the paper yourself he'll disregard it.