A debate about debates
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 22:13
VIEWED: 12983
PAGE 14 of 17
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I would say REAL reproduction is: two "parts" coming together and making a third "part", with the original "parts" staying intact to rinse, wash, and repeat as could the third....."
Uhhmm ... now I know you're not a bio major. Bacteria, fungi - binary fission or budding (same basics, different relative sizes) is their main reproductive mode. 1 + 0 = 2
Ruse,
Come on now. You know exactly what I'm saying. Why be a monkey(I can only guess you will eventually use it as proof we are descendants of orangutans)? In the great debate about evolution, does anyone talk about Asexual reproduction? No. There is close to zero chance of mutation. Therefore, it can't be a mechanism of evolution. Especially if the earth is 46 million years old. For an organism to go from 47 chromosomes to 48, or 48 to 47 chromosomes is statistically impossible considering the age of the earth and the rate of positive (organism friendly) mutations. Never mind going from a handful of chemicals to the biodiversity present today. And for what it is worth, I am a black female from Tunisia with a Bio degree that currently works as an animal behaviorist....Well, it's true.....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
alright, i get your point(s). i apologize about the emotion; frankly i never wanted to argue about evolution anyways..
i really dont care if religion is excluded from scientific debates, because generally i dont dispute new findings anyways; ive just come to believe there is a creator lifeforce or brain (God) behind it. i guess lately ive been getting offended by some comments, kind of implying that i am illogical because im a 'theist' or because i believe some of those stories might true
my point has always been that there COULD be some collaboration globally for the fallen angel hypothesis. and actually Sevenpercent i could confidently debate you on the the biblical support for this, only i want to be thorough and give it some time, plus i dont have my bible in front of me right now.... but the sons of God can, in that context could only be referring to angels. i searched around, and i feel like im copping out by giving this link, but its pretty comprehensive, and im just not ready to compile my thoughts into some kind of term paper for you(and further diverting the discussion)
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html
give it a read and tell me what you think
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"In the great debate about evolution, does anyone talk about Asexual reproduction? No. There is close to zero chance of mutation."
Well, ahem, .... actually lack of DNA proofreading is THE major mechanism of genetic change in viruses and bacteria. When you double your numbers every few hours allowing random mutation and throwing away 0.1% of your population is worth the odd genetic benefit.
In fact, short generation time and lots of random mutations is the evolutionary mode.
As a hint to you, I would change sources of information since you don't seem to be doing too well with your 'facts'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Authors: Mingfeng He, Hongbo Ruan, Changliang Yu, Lei Yao
Comments: 11 pages including figs., for Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 15, issue 2 (2004)
Subj-class: Statistical Mechanics; Populations and Evolution
Using a lattice model based on Monte Carlo simulations, we study the role of the reproduction pattern on the fate of an evolving population. Each individual is under the selection pressure from the environment and random mutations. The habitat ("climate") is changing periodically. Evolutions of populations following two reproduction patterns are compared, asexual and sexual. We show, via Monte Carlo simulations, that sexual reproduction by keeping more diversified populations gives them better chances to adapt themselves to the changing environment.
Argue with these clowns not me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Is the truth of religion to be decided on how far back it goes? Then the Vedas go back even farther, and animism even farther back than that. Or do we decide on religion based on popularity?
We should all try and remember that spaghetti monster not withstanding, the bible is a collection of writings spanning 1500 years, 40 writers and 3 continents.
But that's not the same as debating them. A debate is where you take a sides. And once again, how do you "prove" your point? You may think you're "debating" your religion with other people but you're prolly just badgering them.
------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
no no no, I did not make myself clear. I was stating that you can not take the bible as fact because of the fact that there are multiple writers, etc......
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is from that paper you cited but failed to read. "As seen from the Table 1, populations with higher mutation probability and birth rate become extinct less frequently."
Lets say bacteria fission in an hour. That's a little more than 17 MILLION generations in a day. Or 211 THOUSAND MULLION in 17 years, which is the time for ONE human reproductive cycle. I would say that when it comes to 'mutation probability' and 'birth rate' bacteria have it all over 'higher' sexually reproducing life forms, like say, humans. Which is born out by the facts. Whether you look at numbers of individuals or total biomass, bacteria are the most successful life form on earth.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ruse,
"That's a little more than 17 MILLION generations in a day. Or 211 THOUSAND MULLION in 17 years"
Do you find it "odd" after all those billions of generations over the last 200 years of study that bacteria haven't evolved into "other" organisms yet? Using that logic, evolution over 200 generations of man is surely impossible. Shouldn't it be a lot easier for a simple life form(a bacterium)to change compared to one as complex as man? or whale? Or am I missing the reason it is so easy to go from not having any chromosome to a species with 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7.. etc...Yet, so hard for a bacterium to do the same. What gives? Are you arguing for evolution or against it with your posts. I think you are proving my point. Either there is something other than evolution at work here, or the earth is at least 2688 trillion years old. What say you?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Do you find it "odd" after all those billions of generations over the last 200 years of study that bacteria haven't evolved into "other" organisms yet?"
They have, only it took a few billion years, and here we are.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To further address your post - the paper looked at several different evolutionary schemes; with various combinations of birth rate (high low), mutation rate (high, low), and asexual v sexual reproduction. One serious limitation is that it limited its comparison to organisms with the same size genome. But clearly humans have many more genes than bacteria. At a certain point their mathematical models break down. (And BTW, they are the crudest of models.)
So you can't overdraw their conclusions beyond the analytical parameters - something you are trying to do.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Anti, look I'm sorry to be such a pig about this, but you don't get MY point. A "debate" can only occur when both sides use the same set of assumptions. You can "debate" about fallen angels all you like, but to me it's like looking for similar archetypes between Hans Christian Andersen and the Brothers Grimm. You scan the Bible from one chapter and verse to the next, drawing finely-wrought conclusions from (IMHO) a fairy tale. And all you can point to as "proof" that the Bible is the Word of God is... the Bible! If you're talking to someone who doesn't "believe" what you "believe", that's not proof at all. And that is the drawback off all religions, and why they cannot be debated with someone who doesn't share your belief.
my point has always been that there COULD be some collaboration globally for the fallen angel hypothesis. and actually Sevenpercent i could confidently debate you on the the biblical support for this, only i want to be thorough and give it some time, plus i dont have my bible in front of me right now....
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME