|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Memento mori
|
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. I was speaking idiomatically. FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Apr 19, 2007 at 12:46 PM.
|
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? What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? “When I slap you you'll take it and like it.” |
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.
FELIPE NO |
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. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? FGSFDS!!! |
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Additional Spam:
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. How ya doing, buddy? FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Apr 19, 2007 at 02:29 PM.
Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
|
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. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. “When I slap you you'll take it and like it.”
Last edited by kinkymagic; Apr 19, 2007 at 02:35 PM.
|
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? Most amazing jew boots |
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 was speaking idiomatically. FGSFDS!!! |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? “When I slap you you'll take it and like it.” |
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. How ya doing, buddy? |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Member 22125 Level 2.00 Apr 2007 |
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
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. There's nowhere I can't reach.
♪♡
Thanks Seris! |
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? This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Memento mori
|
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.
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.
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. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? FGSFDS!!! |
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Some causes of genetic mutation:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units...mutationbg.cfm What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
FELIPE NO “When I slap you you'll take it and like it.” |
It was more of a retort to lurker actually, who for some reason appeared to pour scorn on the very notion that the radioactive substances we are exposed to and eat on a regular basis somehow would not affect our DNA. Yes, we do consume them; that's the basis of carbon dating in all living things.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
How ya doing, buddy? “When I slap you you'll take it and like it.” |
And 'debating through links' is not what kinkymagic's doing. No, don't argue with me. This is not what you hope it is. Educate yourself and for christ's sake son. You tell me you only used 'background radiation' as an example and then you don't shut up about radiation causing wrinkles and cancer. Jesus christ, this isn't a debate, it's a Additional Spam:
There's nowhere I can't reach.
Last edited by Sarag; Apr 20, 2007 at 05:51 PM.
Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
|
This is an excellent book that I highly recommend to all who have participated in this thread: http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-S...7193138&sr=8-1
The Author, Francis Collins, was the head of the Human Genome Project which mapped our entire genetic code -- one of the premier scientists of our day. He's also a christian and evolutionist. Although the focus of the book isn't "Proving" evolution, he does put forth many of the examples we use that shows all or most of the evidence we've collected thus far certainly suggest evolution actually happened. As we learn more and more about DNA evolutionary theory becomes even more interesting, and this man is on the forefront of that research. As for the argument about the addition of genetic material: It appears that gene duplication is one mechanism that has allowed increasing complexity in organisms. Take, for instance, the human coagulation pathway. Here is a basic diagram: http://dpalm.med.uth.tmc.edu/faculty...js/pathway.gif The early intelligent design proponents argued that this pathway was so complex that it could not have evolved without a designer. However, imagine an organism with a low-pressure circulatory system -- of which there are many in nature. It would require a much simpler coagulation cascade, perhaps consisting of only one protein. Then, through the course of replicating cells, the gene coding for that single protein duplicates -- once again, this happens commonly and can be observed. Now with two copies of the same gene, one of these copies is free to mutate at will (because the good copy will still perform the same function). After many copies, duplications, and mutations, you would find an organism that generates a wide variety of different, but related, proteins all functioning in a very similar capacity. And this is exactly what we find in the human coagulation cascade -- this would represent a gain in genetic material, a positive mutation, an explanation of how a complex system like this could evolve, and also fits amazingly well with what we know about the development of the vertebrate circulatory system. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
For some reason you have been absolutely convinced that YOU know the answers to life, the universe, and everything, while the world's brightest minds don't know those answers for sure. That's a pretty arrogant stance to take. If you don't agree with me, fine, but stop acting as though the entire evolutionary theory were proven fact. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Apr 21, 2007 at 05:47 PM.
|