This is here because a thread about an advance in teleportational techonology quickly got off-topic through discussion of things like what would happen to one’s ‘soul’ if one was transported using that sort of tech. It’s still largely off-topic, possibly moving into evilution/biology.
My idea is simple: continue that stuff in this thread, where it IS on-topic. Keep it rambling from one topic to another.
Try to keep this mature, flame free, interesting, and all that stuff.
I would like to second pixelmass in asking that. I’m really interested to hear a rational response (because I’ve heavily researched the topic and not yet found a single acceptable answer). Please allow me to add my own personal flavor, though:
My challenge/request:
In order for the genetic evolution of one species into an new species to be plausible on the basis of mutation, then mutations must be capable of adding new genetic information, not merely altering that which already existed or subtracting genetic information (as all examples I’ve seen do). Can you provide me with an example of an observed mutation that added genetic data to an organism?
As far as i’ve heard mutation isn’t really evolution, as I know it it’s simply a screw up in the usual genetic code and very rarely is it useful, and it doesn’t mean it’ll passed on to all new generations.
As far as the dog breeds and evolution goes like in the teleportation topic dog breeds show proof of the type of evolution that is possible. What’d you call Horizontal evolution meaning overall complexity doesn’t increase.
I’ll leave this to someone else who knows more on the subject.
However, I’ll try one last thing. How about you think of DNA as a little (paper) script, which is being copied by thousands of scribes (who are sometimes replaced, and often use their last copy to make their next). Most of the time, they’ll do it pretty much exacly the same, but sometimese they’ll make a small error here or there (since there are thousands of copies being made errors are inevitable). These errors can come in many forms, from using a different word with a similair meaning, or using a wrong word which is longer or shorter, or even accidentally skipping bits.
Alright, now I bow out of this area.
You don’t need ADD new genetic information (most of the genetic info for a human is already present in a fruitfly [or parasites in the human body]), it needs only to be rearanged; mutation. Search for Transposons or Jumping Genes.
%<
yeah, sorry blendozo - if you don’t believe in evolution I’ve got some di-hydrogen monoxide for sale. potent stuff… only $10 a gallon.
have you actually READ any of darwin’s research, or do you limit yourself to whatever your church hands out
Hey, easy on the sarcasm. Just because someone is a creationist doesn’t mean they park their brain at the door when it comes to science.
[Edit] Although yes, unfortunatly there are some people who just parrot what their church tells them to believe. My point is: Don’t stereotype.
All scientists are bigots who think they know more than anyone else!
I’m referring to amount of data, not content. And I am not rejecting the possibility that science has observed mutations that add to the amount of data.
This is what I’m saying/asking: I don’t know of an example of observed mutation leading to higher genetic content (to use Cyber Dragon’s terms, we could call this “vertical evolution”). I am only aware of documented examples of “horizontal evolution” (Cyber Dragon terms again, because they seem to fit). I want someone to take me seriously and provide an example so that I can at least have some sort of groundwork on which to consider your claims (which currently seem unrealistic to me).
Fligh: I will do some research on those terms.
NodeRanger: :eek: Dihydrogen monoxide? Where!? I’ve been looking for some of that stuff! :rolleyes: But seriously, why do you feel the need to arrogantly disregard my question, then spout nonsense? No, I have not read Darwin’s original research, but I have read a considerable amount of current research and information from both sides of this issue (though I don’t believe I’ve ever been handed anything on the subject by a church).
Unrealistic compared to what? Do you have a hypothesis? (something based on already established scientific evidence) Or a belief?
There is nothing wrong with holding a belief, but as I stated so many times before, a belief has no place in any serious scientific debate.
Religion and Science are two seperate things, and debating them together (or trying to use one to disprove another) usually leads to nowhere (except maybe to flame wars. Right NodeRanger?)
Now I give you this short flash video, strictly for entertainment purposes:
O and blendenzo: you might want to try the wiki for some info on evolution:
Quite a bit of information.
I really don’t think so. Both are in pursuit of truth. One focuses more on the physical world, and the other focuses more on the super-natural world as it relates to the physical world. A person can’t seriously believe something if he thinks it has nothing to do with the way the world works.
I’d say both seek explinations. Religion creates them one way, science another, but some of the goals of both are quite similair.
How exactly does religion “pursue” the truth?
Religion is not in the persuit of truth. Religion assumes that it already has the right answer, and everyone else is wrong.
End of story.
Depends on the particular religion. Some aren’t like that, some are.
For example, Quakers are usually calm, flexible, and accepting. I don’t think they got in a bit huff when Darwin came out with his research, they pretty much just went “shrug The Bible is more guidlines and stories than rules and history”.
Weather or not they can “shrug” things off is not the point here.
The point is:
They would never accept evolution as a possibility, because if they did, that would also mean that they accept the posibility of their religion being wrong.
Any way you slice it, Religion does not persue the truth, because it already presents it’s claims to be “the one and only truth”.
Either, way I really can’t see how you can seriously place science and religion in the same category.
It’s not ‘shrugging off’ so much as being willing to accept chages.
Again I say, it depends on the religion.
I myself didn’t say that, I said only that some of their purposes are similair.
EDIT: Im pretty sure Quakerism in general HAS accepted evolution. But there are a few different strains of it, and beliefs can vary a lot even between the indivituals within one.
You need to tell us how you came to that conclusion.
Where does it say that quakers are open to accepting the possibility of their beliefs being wrong?
In my experience, complete commitment to a set of beliefs is one constant that can be found in any religion. Regardless of what that religion is based on.
Well, I’ve been forced to do my own research since no one here seems to know of any examples of genetic information being added. I have found one documented example of this process (known as “gene duplication”). If you’re interested, please read the following articles:
Social, I agree with you that religion is not science. Also, you are correct that religion does not try to prove the truth, but rather it generally asserts it (but 1Smildanach is also right that this depends on the religion). However, I would like to make an important distinction here for those who are having trouble with it: Statements that disagree with or question evolution on a purely physical basis are not by nature “religious”. I know that I did address metaphysical issues in the previous thread, but that does not automatically classify every question or statement I ever make in the future as “religious” or metaphysical. I am addressing a physical issue here, and I hope that it can be answered physically.
EDIT: Social, some religions encourage followers to “seek the truth” and only suggest paths, but do not mandate the correct answer. I believe Buddhism is this way, but I may be wrong. BTW, thanks for the link. It spearheaded my research so far.
Things vary betweet things. Even religions. Christianity based ones tend to have lots of similairities, but there are plenty of religions which are vastly different.
I used Quakers for one specific example, I do not neccessarily mean anything outside said example.
P.S. I may be a birthright Quaker, but I haven’t been taught much about it. I haven’t gone and researched heaps on my own, either.
EDIT:
Okay, I’m having a few problems here (see my last post for links to the articles I’m referring to):
From the article on gene duplication:
The significance of this process [gene duplication] for evolutionary biology is that, unlike a single functional gene, which is usually subject to purifying selection and thus has a slowed mutation rate, one copy of a duplicate set of genes is often freed from selective pressure, allowing it to freely mutate
This seems to have no basis other than pure speculation, since
From the example article on Down Syndrome:
Down syndrome disorders are based on having too many copies of the genes located on chromosome 21. In general, this leads to an overexpression of the genes.
Wouldn’t this be the case with any chromosome, or is there something special about chromosome 21? Also, the article on gene-duplication assumes that time will be given for mutation to occur on one of the copies, but natural selection does not seem to favor this idea:
From Down Syndrome article:
A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated.
It is also a well know phenomenon among animals for the mother to kill any abnormal or weaker offspring.
Any thoughts?