Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > General Science Questions and Layperson Board > Science and Religion Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Science and Religion Forum Discuss and post questions about Science and Religion in this Forum


Evolutionists are Dumb

Evolutionists are Dumb - Science and Religion Forum

Evolutionists are Dumb - Discuss and post questions about Science and Religion in this Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-30-2010, 05:54 PM
Warthaug's Avatar
Post-Doc
Points: 2,383, Level: 31 Points: 2,383, Level: 31 Points: 2,383, Level: 31
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London, Canada
Posts: 203
Thanks: 1
Thanked 68 Times in 61 Posts
Default Re: Evolutionists are Dumb

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin_a View Post
Why do evolution and creation have to be separate?
Because evolution is a science, while creationism is a religious belief. In that, they are fundamentally incompatible.

To be clear - science (i.e. evolution) is about what you can prove to be true. What you believe to be true has no place in science, other than as a hypothesis. But even then, a hypothesis is diametrically opposed to a religious belief. To be a valid scientific hypothesis, a "belief" must meet certain criteria; notably:

1) It must be based on previous data - i.e. you cannot discount previously established facts
2) It must be testable - i.e. you can design an experiment, or observe nature, to test your hypothesis
3) It must be falsifiable - i.e. if your idea is wrong, you can demonstrate it is wrong

Creationism and other religious beliefs fails, at a minimum, points 2 and 3. There is no experimental method to prove a role for god(s), nor can the hypothesis ever be disproven (i.e. no matter what you find, religious individuals can always say "that's the way god does it"). Many religious beliefs, such as ID, are based on the denial of scientifically established facts and thus fail to meet all three points.

Ergo, creationism, directed evolution, ID, etc, have no place in science, as they are fundamentally untestable hypotheses, and thus do not fit the criteria for science.

Furthermore, assuming an (unseen) role for god(s) in science goes against one of the fundamental principals science is built on - the principal of [Only registered users see links. ]. Parsimony is the "filter" we use to separate equally valid conclusions. Parsimony states that the simplest explanation to a question should be assumed to be the correct one, so long as the explanatory power of the simpler explanation is as good as the more complex explanation.

Now we know that evolution occurs - denying that is like denying gravity (in fact, the science explaining how evolution works is far more developed than the science explaining gravity). So there is, in essence, two equally valid explanations for how evolution works:

1) The natural "forces" of mutation, selection and drift accounts for evolution, or
2) The natural "forces" of mutation, selection and drift PLUS the supernatural "force" of god accounts for evolution

Option 2 is more complex than 1, and option 1 is as explanatory as 2. Parsimony dictates we take the simpler explanation as being the correct one, therefore the scientific thing to do is to reject option #2.

Bryan
__________________
[Only registered users see links. ], here at Molecular Station.

Last edited by Warthaug; 07-30-2010 at 06:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-30-2010, 06:44 PM
Warthaug's Avatar
Post-Doc
Points: 2,383, Level: 31 Points: 2,383, Level: 31 Points: 2,383, Level: 31
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London, Canada
Posts: 203
Thanks: 1
Thanked 68 Times in 61 Posts
Default Re: Evolutionists are Dumb

Quote:
Originally Posted by oBWhat View Post
Why i think evolutionists are pretty dumb:

Evolutionist Point 1: Humans Evolved from Monkeys.... "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
Ahh, irony. Your name is oBWhat.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys, but rather from apes (to be more accurate, humans are apes, but that's another thread).

Likewise, a species does not need to go extinct in order to speciate (i.e. form a new species). On the contrary, speciation requires a continuous chain of changing individuals to form a new species.

So, two claims made, two claims wrong. oBWhat's score, so far, 0 for 2...

Quote:
Originally Posted by oBWhat View Post
You would also need to evolve a male and a female at the same time to continue to propagate the new monkey "species"... lol
Wow, he knows how sex works. Guess the score is now 1 for 3. But he has also demonstrated a profound ignorance of evolution - populations evolve, individuals do not. Ergo his "issue" is a false one - a newly evolving species will evolve multiple males and females, making species propagation a non-issue.

So the score is now 1 for 4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oBWhat View Post
Point 2: Humans share 98% or more DNA with Monkeys....
Yet another fail. Humans share about 98% of their coding DNA sequence with chimps, who are apes. Old-world monkeys are only ~93% similar to humans.

Score now stands at 1 for 5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oBWhat View Post
"Just because we share 98% of SOME of our DNA with monkeys this does not make Monkeys our cousins"
Wow, oBWhat says we're dumb, and yet he thinks we say monkeys are our cousins? Cousins are individuals who are the progeny of one of your parents siblings. No human has a monkey as a cousin, and you'd have to be pretty dumb to think otherwise.

Score now stands at 1 for 6, although that was so stupid I feel like I should be docking oBWhat's sole mark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oBWhat View Post
"We also share about 50% of SOME of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas
Firstly, your numbers are wrong. About 50% of human genes have counterparts in banana's - counterparts in that the banana has similar-sequenced genes that serve the same purpose. At the DNA sequence level, humans and bananas have a much lower degree of homology.

So that's 1 for 7.

Secondly, the fact that something as different as a banana uses so many of the same genes (about 10,000 genes), for the same purpose as we humans do, is profound proof of evolution - its a clear demonstration of descent by modification.

So that's 1 for 8.

And no "evolutionist" would claim this makes us half banana. That is a claim only idiotic creationists would make. An "evolutionist" would say that the shared genes is evidence of a common ancestor, some time in the past, from which humans and banana's inherited their shared genes.

So that's 1 for 9.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oBWhat View Post
While many evolutionists proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA, few would lie by idly and allow themselves to receive a transplant using chimpanzee organs. As a matter of fact, American doctors tried using chimp organs in the 1960s, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. The claim of 98% similarity between chimpanzees and humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but also scientifically incorrect. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps. For instance, a 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002).
LOL, so many wrongs in there.

Firstly, organ compatibility is determined by two genes - specifically the MHCI and MHCII haplotypes. Even close siblings only have a 25% chance of matching their MHC alleles, and siblings are generally about 99.9% similar at a genetic level. Obviously, the ~20-fold greater difference in the genetic makeup of a chimp to a human would make the chances of a match even lower. Moreover, since matches are dependent solely on two genes, the degree of genome similarity is all but irrelevant when determining a donor match.

So that's 1 for 10.

Secondly, the idea that we're finding more and more differences between humans and apes is a lie, pure and simple. Both the human and chimp genomes are sequenced completely; the exact degree of relatedness is [Only registered users see links. ]. The divergence between humans and chimps is exactly 1.23%. At the protein-coding level, the average is 2 amino acid substitutions per protein.

So that's 1 for 11.

Oh, and while we're on the topic, we scientists may soon be transplanting pig organs into humans - we just remove the MHC molicules, making an organ that the human immune system will not reject. The remaining homology between pigs and people is so good that no additional changes are needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oBWhat View Post
[/U]These same evolutionists dont even mention "Junk DNA" or non-coding DNA which is a bigger chunk of our genome than coding areas! These areas have been found to be very important for human life.
On the contrary, junk DNA is one of the hottest areas of evolutionary biology, and has been pretty much since it was discovered. Nor do we claim it is without function - we only claim its function is independent of its sequence, and that is a conclusion that is so far supported by the data.

I'm feeling generous, so I'll only doc you one point - that's a score of 1 for 12.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oBWhat View Post
Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites...Given those proportions, 1-2% does not appear so small, does it?
And the point of this is? No one claims that humans and chimps are identical - clearly we are not. But the ~37 million differences (the true number, not the 80 million you quote) are easily accounted for by evolution. Given ~6 million years of divergent evolution, you need a mutation rate of ~3.075 mutation/year to account for the difference. Humans have a [Only registered users see links. ] of 175 mutations per generation. Given a generation time of ~20 years, that's 8.75 mutation/year; 2.85X more than what is needed to generate the degree of difference observed. Assuming that chimps have a similar mutation rate, that means that the basal mutation rate in humans and chimps is enough to provide 5.7Xthe total amount of mutations to account for the differences between humans and chimps - more than enough to give selection and drift a chance to work

That's another fail - so your final score is 1 in 13, AKA 7.7%. That's a failing grade, in case you were confused.

Ironic, you claim we are dumb, when you've just demonstrated to all of us that the only component of evolution you have a basic grasp of is sex.

Bryan

Last edited by Warthaug; 07-30-2010 at 08:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Warthaug For This Useful Post:
majeste (12-05-2010)
  #13  
Old 04-18-2011, 04:51 AM
Pipette Filler
Points: 4, Level: 1 Points: 4, Level: 1 Points: 4, Level: 1
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Evolutionists are Dumb

Apes and humans evolved from an unknown common ancestor. This ancestor split up and evolved into different species, one became erect and the other continued as it was.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dumb , evolutionists


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DUMB Question - are PV Solar Cells using the Photoelectric effect to generate current ? unamerican Physics Forum 1 08-19-2005 01:08 PM
Dumb question N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) Physics Forum 0 08-05-2005 01:10 AM
Dumb question Clemens W Physics Forum 0 08-04-2005 05:50 PM
Dumb question SNUMBER6 Chemistry Forum 2 09-09-2003 04:33 PM
Dumb newbie with a ? Dave Chemistry Forum 4 07-28-2003 09:54 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.16154 seconds with 16 queries