Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Icelander]
    #11599463 -

i feel like finding an answer to this life is impossible, the only way to know the knowledge of how all was created would mean you would have to be the one to have created it. Our brains alone can not handle the truth yet. IMO i feel we should just live this life the way we want and wait for the answer to be given to us, but not go in search for it. Everything will be explained soon enough, just be patient. again thats just how i perceive things, doesnt mean anyone else has to think that way.


--------------------
Good bye to everyone, my time here was well spent, and I think I have gained a lot from coming here. The internet has become to much of a priority for me, and I think I am ready to let it go for a while. < Who am I kidding...I'm hooked for life.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: CMACD]
    #11599472 -

CMACD said:
Noteworthy said:
Evolution does not have to be true... why do people so passionately think evolution is true?

its a great theory... but that doesnt mean it is a true description of our existance.

there are lots of holes - specifically - the evidence. now, of course, it is expected that there should not be much evidence because not many fossils survive. but that is not evidence in itself. it is just a reason that someone can be comfortable having less evidence than desired.

but in the end more evidence is needed.

creationist theories do not have to posit 6,000 year old universe. if there was a creative force in the universe, it could occur over any span of time.

you shouldnt believe in a creator, really, because there is no reason to believe so. however you also should be wary of believing in evolution. why not just accept that our origin is a fucking mystery?


gravity does not have to be true... why do many people agree so passionately that it must? It's a great theory, but that doesn't mean it's a true description of our existence... right? uuuh, okay.

Why not accept that our origin is a fucking mystery? Cause we have ALL THE EVIDENCE WE NEED that our origin is descended from a common ape like from a common rat like from a common fish like from a common worm like ancestor. This thread is funny, because DNA is the STRONGEST evidence of evolution, way stronger than fossil records. People can argue about how alike things may "look", but when it comes to the genetic similarities calculated in strands of DNA, the answer is definite.


This is something people bring up a lot... i don't get it. how is gravity anything like evolution? you can feel gravity every single moment of your life and you can measure it under all the conditions here on earth. You don't need to beleive in any theory of gravity to know that the evidence for a continuous force is always there and always consistent.

evolution is not similar. We never have seen a species evolve into a different species. yeah sure, we should not expect to, because it takes millions of years, but that doesnt matter here. The point is that we have not seen it. So unlike gravity, you cannot see macroevolution occuring all around you.

What evidence is DNA?

people talk about the DNA of humans and chimps as if the similarity somehow evidences evolution?

well, although it does not serve to make evolution unlikely, it does not serve to make evolution more likely than an intelligent design account. Because in the end, humans and chimps are very similar creatures compared to everything else on earth. Thus we should expect the DNA to be comparatively similar compared to everything else on earth

please elabourate on how DNA is evidence for macroevolution?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #11599474 -

Quote:
Some people sure are passionate about this topic.  I wonder why that is.


Because some people want to move into the 21st century and away from superstition and ignorance while others want to drag their heels.

The dinosaurs died long ago. Seems they need to be better buried.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Icelander]
    #11599543 -

Radiation can cause mutation in DNA, over an extended period of time constant bombardment from the suns radiation causes the random mutations that your trying to disprove.

It's not creatures that evolve its the DNA that there built from that gets changed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: echoesSG]
    #11599548 -

me? :lol:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: echoesSG]
    #11599553 -

I strongly doubt icelander was trying to disprove the changes in DNA that occur naturally


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Noteworthy]
    #11599568 -

Most all of the thousands of varieties of domestic dogs, from great danes to chihuahuas, are the result of the selective breeding of wolves. If one was unaware of this fact, one might believe God created them all as they are seen today.

This much is not in dispute.

"But they are all the same species," a Creationist might observe as if speciation is the only marker of evolutionary change. Of course the idea of a species is a scientific classification, but the irony is lost on the ignorant.

Horses and zebras and donkeys are different species yet vary less physically than some dog varieties. Inner genetic changes obviously affect outward appearance. Can this really be argued? So a Creationist might be forced to accept these obvious facts, but stubbornly clings to the idea that speciation cannot be affected by genetic change.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #11599609 -

yeah i dont really see what youre talking about, sorry

I am not suggesting that people should be able to determine genetic similarity purely based on external features

but the genetics of a donkey and a zebra are much closer than between a fish and a hamster


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Noteworthy]
    #11599657 -

Fruit flies share nearly 60% of human genes and are studied by thousands of scientists around the world. The reason is that fruit flies and humans use the same or similar genes to develop into adults. And the short life cycle of the fly makes it an ideal subject for genetic experiments.

Professor Gerry Rubin, from the University Of California, Berkeley, worked with the Celera Genomics Corporation to decipher the fruit fly's DNA sequence: "They can become addicted to alcohol, cocaine and other drugs. They have a wake-sleep cycle like humans do. They have complicated rituals of behaviour.

:grin:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/647139.stm

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Noteworthy]
    #11599707 -

Quote:
yeah i dont really see what youre talking about, sorry



Not surprising.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Noteworthy]
    #11599887 -

Noteworthy said:
although microevolution is a solid truth which has been whitnessed over and over again, 'the theory of evolution' which most appropriately refers to the theory that life arose from non-life through many stages of microevolution


That is not evolution.  That is abiogenesis.  Evolution was never meant to explain how life emerged from non-life(though I think the idea could be extended to explain exactly that).  Darwin was very about what his theory was meant to explain: The Origin of Species.  That's it.  It explains how species change over time and eventually become new species.  It explains how life on earth diversified from its earliest ancestor.  There are some legitimate debates in evolution, and I am quite critical of some of Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy, but the theory of common descent has solid genetic evidence to support it.  All life on earth is related.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11599907 -

All life on earth is related. :thumbup:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Noteworthy]
    #11599933 -

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/01/22 08:09 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #11600389 -

i dont think a tatraploid can really be used as an example here

as for abiogenisis, silversoul, i think it is a significant hurdle that prvents the theory of evolution from being adequite.

If any other mechanism is involved in the universe i norder to create life some way other than reproduction of existing life, then it seems like this force would be capable of functioning continuously, rather than the supposition that the complex process occured billions of years ago and then stopped.

so either you consider abiogenisis to be part of your evolutionary theory - ie certain natural processes evolving through mutation and natural selection until they constitute life (as opposed to, say, crystal), OR you would concede an incredibly complex force existing in the universe that has properties capable of producing life. If such a force existed, it would be likely to occur even today


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Cracka_X]
    #11607633 -

Cracka_X said:
well, there are plenty of scientific publications released every year that attempt to "disprove evolution" in one way or another.  They fail to disprove it...

I'm sure, through elaborate mental gymnastics, one could look past it all and still deny it.  And while we can discuss it, we need to be more specific as to what we're discussing.  Evolutionary thought is an interdisciplinary realm that needs to be addressed as such.  Thus, when we discuss an idea based on evolution, we should take into account the ecology of evolution in various scientific fields.  Then, and only then, does evolution clearly make sense.

To try to debunk evolution as a whole just by saying it's a theory is no good.  There's plenty of other theories out there and they've yet to be disproved.



Quote:
and if i'm to understand the evolutionists theory of how DNA came about, it sounds an awful lot like creationism.


...Last I checked, creationism had a static piece of evidence that can't be reshaped; added or deleted from. (except when it went from old to new testament with select dead sea scrolls(thanks romans!))

Unlike creationism, the "theory" of evolution has evolved.  The concept and ideas involved are not 100% the same from when it first hit the scene.  Though, evolutionary theory, has been and is still being refined.  How about the comparison of an open source program being evolutionary theory vs a corporate patented program as creationism. Unlike the static creationism, evolutionary thought is dynamic.


"there are plenty of scientific publications released every year that attempt to "disprove evolution" in one way or another.  They fail to disprove it..."

That's great and startling evidence....As a Christian I would be seriously disappointed If their argument for creation was "No one has ever disproven God exists!"  No doubt. No one can disprove what i see when im tripping is not actually real either. Sure they can explain the science  behind it but if i were a quantum physicist I would just claim It is opening my vision to another dimension. Prove me wrong. Prove my psyche is not setting there next to you getting a better idea why you want to deny the existence of God so strongly. Not disproving proves nothing. At least in science. Thought since that's your expertese you should know.

You speak of science and evolution as one and the same. Science and religion are not separate entity's other than in evolutionists boxed in heads. It makes it easier for you to dismiss facts that interfere with evolution. Its great that science is dynamic in the pure since however evolution is no longer pure science.

Put it like this although I know you will not peek out of your box because you want to be a monkey so bad. The "dynamics" used in evolution are quite simple and abusive of people who have blind faith in there science gods. If evidence leads in many directions and I only consider evidence that gives me what i want, this is not true science. If there are facts that disprove my theory and I make a "theory" bending this back to where I want it to fit this is not true science. When fundamental evidence i have used to support my theory become conflicting with it and I say well my theory has enough support I will just say "Oh I was wrong about that". That's your science not mine. That's the "blind faith" that evo's generally say that people with faith have. As if science is foreign to us.

The only thing more dynamics of evolution are closer to that of lying than they are science.


--------------------
Intelligent design is not science because it is not provable.....but out of how many universes throughout the multiverse? I wonder how many of those universes have a designer? Hmmm...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: jflow008]
    #11608527 -

Evolution cannot be disproved by natural means.  The game is rigged, as it was meant to be.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #11610095 -

Wow, maybe you should reevaluate your perception of evolution, because it's fact.  ok, there's no debate, no if ands or buts.  Evolution is happening and we've observed it.  Don't take that the wrong way. There's no point in wasting time arguing over it.

First off, whoa, don't "box" me into a preconceived category of a science braggart.  Let me tell you a little about myself. I study reproductive toxicology, where my work involves understanding how environmental contaminants affect wild animals.  If anything, this field has strengthened my understanding of evolution, but that's because I can actually see the beginning of soon to be permanent changes in animals.  Also, I work at the molecular level, checking changes in gene expression and how they may affect development of the endocrine system.  Some contaminants affect the expression on an individual and are not passed to the offspring.  A contaminant known as DES does affect the offspring in some awful ways(wiki link for DES).  Not only that, but these effects continue for many generations.  ok, now my feelings on religion...  I think any piece of religious literature, especially the Bible, that claims to be the "ultimate word" of God is absolute GARBAGE that has been perverted by man.  (...It should also be moved to the fiction section of book stores)  While I'll credit religion with some good in the world, for the most part, I see blind good.  Some Christian classmates of mine want to go to Afirca and help AIDS orphans because, "it's something jesus would do."  Dude, fuck Jesus.  If you're gonna play with AIDS orphans, then do it because YOU have this sincere desire to do it. Not because some asshole pastor said jesus said so.

But... I do in fact believe in "something".  I don't think "it" is definable though. I understand that science will not be able to make sense of this "something" I believe in, but my research doesn't involve questions like that, so I really don't have any "scientific snub opinion", as you might like to think I have, about it. (plus, who cares about "proving" if there's "something" out there?)  Just don't invoke it upon me.  For all I know, we could all be looking at the same "something" but from different angles.  I see many similarities in religion/spirituality practices, while the differences seem socially and/or culturally tied along with the environment/region they're in.

Maybe you misunderstood the context of my post?

Quote:
"No one has ever disproven God exists!"  No doubt. No one can disprove what i see when im tripping is not actually real either. Sure they can explain the science  behind it but if i were a quantum physicist I would just claim It is opening my vision to another dimension.


I really don't understand why you're directing this at me?  I never argued against God.  Also, there's a huge difference between an experimentalist and a theorist.


Quote:
Not disproving proves nothing. At least in science. Thought since that's your expertese you should know.


Well, there's a saying, "No data is still data."  So, failing to disprove a hypothesis doesn't mean your experiment was a failure as much as you learned a bit more as to how whatever you're observing works.


Quote:
You speak of science and evolution as one and the same. Science and religion are not separate entity's other than in evolutionists boxed in heads. It makes it easier for you to dismiss facts that interfere with evolution. Its great that science is dynamic in the pure since however evolution is no longer pure science.



You totally misinterpreted my post...  Religion is garbage.  Spirituality, on the other hand, definitely fits in with science/evolution/everything. 

In my head, "organized religion" is the biggest, steamy load of nonsense man has ever created.


Lastly, I don't know your background, so I don't know where you're coming from.

Edited by Cracka_X (12/08/09 02:40 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Cracka_X]
    #11611427 -

This is a hilarious argument.  It has already been stated that species don't exist.  There is no such things as "species".  This word only helps in classification.  Nature knows no such thing as "species"; as it wouldn't our alphabet, or mathematics...

Evolution, or what we think of it today, has the most EVIDENCE.  This is why we use the theory, instead of religious ideas, in schools.

And anyway, doesn't it make sense that millions of small changes over a vast period of time could completely change a creature?  It just makes perfect sense, really.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: nooneman]
    #11613527 -

Quote:
nooneman said: Why is it so impossible for you people to envision a universe where god created evolution?


Because the bible says that the bible is the word of god and must therefore be taken literally. If the bible wasn't so fucking specific, they would be able to agree with the smarter half of the world.


--------------------
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern." - William Blake

"Psychedelics helped me to escape.. albeit momentarily.. from the prison of my mind. It over-rode the habit patterns of thought and I was able to taste innocence again. Looking at sensations freshly without the conceptual overlay was very profound." - Ram Das

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: teeter]
    #11613593 -

Why is it so hard to just accept that creation lies not within consciousness, entities do not create nature, rather, creation lies within nature itself. Nature exists as matter in motion, constantly moving, changing, colliding, transforming, and complexifying. The "shadow of the soul" is nothing more than the reflection of moving material bodies! From membranes of vibrating super strings of two separate universes colliding, the bang bang sprung fourth, which released a pure plasma of electrons. Over millions of years, this plasma condensed into various sub-atomic particles. Governed by the natural laws of physics, these particles were attracted to each other, creating atoms. From the atomic arose the chemical. From the chemical, the organic. From organic, prokaryotes, to eukaryotes, protistas, animals -- all made out of organized matter in motion, a reflection of the natural laws of physics, a "concentration" of nature into small but highly complex organisms, which have the ability to perceive the world around them, to reflect the outside world. Consciousness is a product of the natural world, that exists independently of us! It is the supreme product of matter organized in a definite way. It is not the creator of the universe, but the creation OF the universe. This alone absolutely refutes all of fideism and its various idealist varieties.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore Bulk Substrate

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* DNA = SRM (self replicating molecule) Zero7a1 981 5 11/05/02 04:48 PM
by Zero7a1
* DNA Language Discoveries.- VERY interesting!
( 1 2 3 all )		 gettinjiggywithit 5,453 45 09/27/04 03:27 PM
by 3eyes
* DNA
( 1 2 3 all )		 ergot 3,596 45 12/08/09 01:33 AM
by jflow008
* dna?
( 1 2 3 all )		 mr crisper 2,455 55 01/31/03 05:06 AM
by Catalysis
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,315 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Genome Evolution | First, a Bang Then, a Shuffle Anonymous 1,261 8 01/31/03 09:29 PM
by Joshua
* Interesting Article On Fungal Evolution RebelSteve33 759 2 02/10/03 05:39 PM
by RebelSteve33
* The evolution of human and technology... MOTH 1,192 11 02/24/05 09:13 AM
by CJay

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
7,991 topic views. 0 members, 73 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 17 queries.