12 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyI don't know what modern evilution theory says today because you guys keep changing it every day.
RJHinds
yes or no: Do you understand and acknowledge that modern evolution theory says that ALL genes, with no exceptions, are mutations, even if the mutations that gave rise to most of those genes that exist today happened many millions of years ago?
-and please please done just completely change the subject yet again. It is a very very simple question that only requires a very simple "yes" or "no".
The Instructor
12 Jun 13
21 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsRUBBISH! We do not keep changing it and modern evolution theory has changed extremely little for the last ten years at least. In fact, ever since the discovery of DNA and genes, evolution theory has ALWAYS said ALL genes, with no exceptions, are mutations, even if the mutations that gave rise to most of those genes that exist today happened many millions of years ago. Because of the current vast mountain of evidence consistent with this, this position is extremely unlikely to ever change i.e. it is pretty certain now that the theory will always say this in the future.
I don't know what modern evilution theory says today because you guys keep changing it every day.
The Instructor
OK, Do you accept that fact that, according to modern evolution theory, ALL genes without any exceptions are mutations? yes or no?
I am not asking you to agree with modern evolution theory; I am only asking you to acknowledge the fact that this is what modern evolution theory says -that is all!.
If no, then you are just being totally stupid denying the obvious fact that we all know is true.
If yes, then you must agree then that, according to modern evolution theory ever since the discovery of DNA and genes, the genes for colour (or for anything else for that matter) are ALL mutations regardless of how long ago those mutations occurred and regardless of how long (tens of years; millions of years; doesn't matter; irrelevant) those genes have been around in the population.
This doesn't mean agreeing to the theory but rather merely agreeing that this is what the theory says and then, at last, we will be just starting to make progress in making you comprehend something in science albeit very small progress.
12 Jun 13
I see where I went wrong with the information argument. I was anticipating it would be an issue before it an was issue, and it may not have even come up at all.
I made the mistake of dealing with it when I didn't need to. An anticipated attack in chess doesn't mean the attack will come, it just means I need to be ready for it. Sorry for any confusion this caused. I am sometimes confused if someone responds to statements I haven't made or assumes what my position is before I've had anything to say about it. It happens.
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyI have yet to see this mountain of evidence you talk about. Are you sure it is not just in your imaginations?
RUBBISH! We do not keep changing it and modern evolution theory has changed extremely little for the last ten years at least. In fact, ever since the discovery of DNA and genes, evolution theory has ALWAYS said ALL genes, with no exceptions, are mutations, even if the mutations that gave rise to most of those genes that exist today happened many millions of yea ...[text shortened]... ing to make progress in making you comprehend something in science albeit very small progress.
The Instructor
12 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain, I was not defining the word evolution. I was describing something, not defining it... I assumed it was obvious from the context just what it was I was describing.
No, not at all. We are discussing a definition here, and definitions are never right or wrong, they are merely agreed upon for the sake of communication. I am just pointing out that your definition of 'evolution' is different from mine and that mine is the standard one (for which I presented Wikipedia as evidence). This doesn't make you wrong, but it does e you should state the question as well as explaining more about this 'link' business.
I said "evolution in a nutshell". I didn't expand on 1. and 2. because it was a simple thumbnail sketch, but I see you do acknowledge mutation was a part of it.
I don't see why you are confused by point 3. Darwin was attempting to find a link between natural selection within a species and his theory. He wanted to show how natural selection could extended to a theory of all organisms evolving from a common ancestry. He want to explain how that could have happened. Darwin did not know if this was a fact, nor did he claim it was a fact, but it's obvious this was an idea he wanted to explore.
4.) Maybe link is wrong word to be using. Darwin was attempting to find some commonality between natural selection WITHIN a species and his theory that organisms could evolve into other different kinds of organisms.
I did not repeat point 5. It's not a point that can be agreed upon because not everyone agrees it's a fact. Only people who have no doubts about it will call it a fact. That's why I dropped it from the list.
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadBy "link" I mean something or some idea that can unify natural selection within a species and the theory of evolution.
OK, it makes more sense no. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
[b]If it's not mutation, then what is it... what allows animals to evolve? Either you've been saying mutations can account for evolution, or you haven't yet said what it is. If there is no mechanism for one species to evolve into another, or mutations don't factor into that mechanism, then wha ...[text shortened]... t you are disputing, that mutations take place, that they are important in evolution?
Einstein looked for a unification theory to unite two things that appeared to be connected but weren't. He never found it. Darwin was looking for a theory to unite two things that appear to be connected. It appears you believe this connection has already been found, which would substantiate my point 5... which I had dropped from the list for reasons I've already explained.
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeNot understanding how natural selection and mutations can lead to new species is like not understanding how you can travel 50 miles if you can travel 10 feet.
Again, I was not defining the word evolution. I was describing something, not defining it... I assumed it was obvious from the context just what it was I was describing.
I said "evolution in a nutshell". I didn't expand on 1. and 2. because it was a simple thumbnail sketch, but I see you do acknowledge mutation was a part of it.
I don't see why you ...[text shortened]... who have no doubts about it will call it a fact. That's why I dropped it from the list.
12 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon lime
By "link" I mean something or some idea that can unify natural selection within a species and the theory of evolution.
Einstein looked for a unification theory to unite two things that appeared to be connected but weren't. He never found it. Darwin was looking for a theory to unite two things that appear to be connected. It appears you believe this con ...[text shortened]... tantiate my point 5... which I had dropped from the list for reasons I've already explained.
By "link" I mean something or some idea that can unify natural selection within a species and the theory of evolution.
the statement “ unify natural selection within a species” doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
What does “unify natural selection” mean? "unify" in what sense and with what? Please explain.
Einstein looked for a unification theory to unite two things that appeared to be connected but weren't.
That is wrong. Those two “things” were quantum physics and relativity and it was not true that they “ appeared to be connected”. “ appeared to be connected” how exactly?
And in what way are they not “connected”? And how do you KNOW they “weren't” connected in whatever way you are referring to here?
He never found it.
He never “found” what? -I mean, do you actually understand what he was trying to do? He was trying to unify the two physics by discovering a single physical law or set of laws that would explain both physics with total logical self-consistency and be an overall simpler physical explanation of everything than the two physical explanation of the two physics it replaces. Logically, there must be a way of unifying the two physics, we just have not found it yet because unifying the two would be an extremely hard complicated thing to do.
Darwin was looking for a theory to unite two things that appear to be connected
What two things? And “unite” those two things in what sense? And in what way did those two things “appear” to be connected?
And what has Darwin's thinking got to do with Einstein's thinking? they were working on two totally different things that are totally unrelated.
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyWe have found a theory that unifies quantum physics and relativity, just not one that unifies relativistic quantum physics with gravity.By "link" I mean something or some idea that can unify natural selection within a species and the theory of evolution.
the statement “ unify natural selection within a species” doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
What does “unify natural selection” mean? "unify" in what sense and with what? Please explain.
[quote] Einstein looked for ...[text shortened]... thinking? they were working on two totally different things that are totally unrelated.
12 Jun 13
6 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorrathat means that that we don't have a theory that unifies quantum physics and relativity that explains all of physics so that unification is an incomplete theory of everything (in physics). We would like a unification of quantum physics and relativity that is a complete theory of everything with no holes like the one you just described.
We have found a theory that unifies quantum physics and relativity, just not one that unifies relativistic quantum physics with gravity.
Nevertheless, your assertion is correct.
12 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think they literally choose not to understand (something extremely easy to understand in this case) for they know if they did understand then that understanding would go against their religious beliefs.
Not understanding how natural selection and mutations can lead to new species is like not understanding how you can travel 50 miles if you can travel 10 feet.
-they choose ignorance.
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyYes, the "Theory of Everything" has not been found, although I find it to be a bit of a misnomer, since it suggests that after you find it, you're done and all the physicists can go home.
that means that that we don't have a theory that unifies quantum physics and relativity that explains all of physics so that unification is an incomplete theory of everything (in physics). We would like a unification of quantum physics and relativity that is a complete theory of everything with no holes like the one you just described.
Nevertheless, your assertion is correct.