Atheism. What are your thoughts?

[spiritualwarrior77]

You are demonstrably wrong. E. coli has shown to mutate a brand new ability over approximately 40,000 generations (about two decades): it can ingest citric acid and utilise it directly, instead of the usual method of synthesising it itself. We have seen bacteria evolve the ability to eat the by-products of nylon - by-products which never existed until we humans started making them in early twentieth century. We have seen bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, one of the most direct and obvious improvements a bacterium could inherit.

Wow, e.coli... that explains how humans evolved from rocks... LOL

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wow, e.coli... that explains how humans evolved from rocks... LOL

You said that mutations have never improved a species. I pointed out that they have. If you want to discuss the evidence for human evolution, we can do that, too.

Somehow I don't think you will, though. People seem so afraid of being proven wrong. Ah, well.

 

[someguy14]

Let God be true.

 

[KCfromNC]

Most atheists I know are quite angry people who seem to live their lives in reaction to a bad experience they had with Christians or the church.

Do you often lead off a conversation in this manner? What response do you hope to get from it?

I'm not sure how anyone can be so confident that there is no God. Wouldn't you have to be God to know that. There is no evidence for there being 'no God' but plenty of evidence for there being a God!

I'm not sure how anyone can be so confident there is only one God. Wouldn't you have to be a god to know there's no other gods out there? Based on the various gods people believe in, there's lots of evidence for multiple gods, much more so than the evidence for just one.

To believe there is no God, means believing that the universe came from nothing, that humans evolved from rocks and that species changed from one to another via mutation, when mutation has never improved a species... ever!

Perhaps other people you meet wouldn't be so hostile if you didn't perpetuate lies about what they must believe.

That takes a lot of faith. I must take my hat off to the atheists for their enormous faith in quite unbelievable ideas.

Just like your enormous faith in your religion of there being no Hindu gods.

 

[spiritualwarrior77]

Do you often lead off a conversation in this manner? What response do you hope to get from it?

That's just my experience. Not sure why everyone is so upset about it?!

I'm not sure how anyone can be so confident there is only one God. Wouldn't you have to be a god to know there's no other gods out there? Based on the various gods people believe in, there's lots of evidence for multiple gods, much more so than the evidence for just one.

I do believe in other 'gods'. I call them demons.

Perhaps other people you meet wouldn't be so hostile if you didn't perpetuate lies about what they must believe.

If you can show where a mutation has improved a species that is more complex than e.coli, then I am definitely interested!

Just like your enormous faith in your religion of there being no Hindu gods.

There are Hindu gods. I just call them demons.

 

[spiritualwarrior77]

You said that mutations have never improved a species. I pointed out that they have. If you want to discuss the evidence for human evolution, we can do that, too.

Somehow I don't think you will, though. People seem so afraid of being proven wrong. Ah, well.

OK... I'll take your word for it re. the e.coli.

Can you show me where a mutation has improved a species that is more complex than that. Like a bird, or a cat, or a human, or a whale, or an ant, or an aardvark for eg.

 

[Gadarene]

Nature is a perfect example. That fact most of us (if we are not psychopaths) have a conscience is another.

Well now.

Funny how so many Christians love to talk about the psychopaths they would be but for the grace of God.

So someone's concocting something here.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

OK... I'll take your word for it re. the e.coli.

Don't. Ask for peer-reviewed evidence and actual scientific studies. My word is meaningless, if I can't support it.

Can you show me where a mutation has improved a species that is more complex than that. Like a bird, or a cat, or a human, or a whale, or an ant, or an aardvark for eg.

I can, and in a moment I will, but I have to ask: why? Your original statement, "[M]utation has never improved a species... ever!" was disproven, so are you now replacing it with "[M]utation has improved a species!" Will you continue to utter the claim that mutation has never improved a species? I'm curious, because all too often people acknowledge their error and accept the facts presented to them... but then go off and make the same demonstrable error.

So, has any mutation improved a bird, cat, human, whale, ant, or aardvark (or something as complex)? Yes. The famous one in humans is sickle cell anaemia, but other examples abound.

• Rats in the West have evolved a biochemical resistances to rat poison (source).
• A mutation that deletes 32 base pairs in humans confers a resistance to HIV, and delays the onset of AIDS (source). This is a good example, as Creationists often wax philosophic about how only an increase in 'information' can grant new traits, how thermodynamics proves that our genes are 'degenerate', how we're always getting worse and worse, etc. Fact is, we're not: not only can our genetic structure increase, but it can be better off with a decrease as well.
• Also in humans, sickle cell anaemia is caused by a point mutation in the β-globin chain that makes up haemoglobin, causing it to form abnormally, which in turn causes the sickle shape of the cell. This confers a detriment, but also confers a major benefit: a resistence to malaria. This is why the disease hasn't died out, especially in those areas where malaria is prevalent - if you have it, you're more likely to live than die because of it, so your mutated genes get passed on, and your children are also more likely to live than die. The mutation spreads over time to the whole population.
• Also in humans is lactose tolerance. Originally, humans grew lactose intolerant after infancy, but the growth of the agricultural lifestyle, and the domestication of cows and goats from which we had a ready supply of nutritous milk, created a selection pressure to prolong this period of lactose tolerance. Over time, we were tolerant for so long that we basically never became intolerant. Now, in the Caucasian population, it's a rarity. In other populations, it's non-existant. In populations where milk was never really a part of the diet at all, lactose intolerance is universal: Native Americans have a 100% prevalence (or did, before interbreeding) of lactose tolerance. While not a mutation we have observed today, the distribution and mechanics of lactose (in)tolerance is easily explainable by evolution, and traceable to mutation.
• Also in humans is the case of an immunity to atherosclerosis (the fattening of the walls of the blood vessels, prevalent with old age) (source). A village in Italy has this trait due to a mutation in a common forefather - and we have identified who this individual was.

 

[Mling]

OK... I'll take your word for it re. the e.coli.

Can you show me where a mutation has improved a species that is more complex than that. Like a bird, or a cat, or a human, or a whale, or an ant, or an aardvark for eg.

Birds' front legs mutated and evolved into wings. Humans evolved to have complex brains. Whales mutated to be able to swim as a lifestyle and only have to breathe every (*coughmumble* minutes) ants mutated to be utterly fascinating little critters and have arrived at several human tricks long before we did (espionage, agriculture, animal husbandry and warfare, for example), and aardvarks...I dunno a lot about them.

Everything that exists is the result of a mutation from something else that was very similar. Everything that is useful in a species (or not useful, for that matter) is the result of a mutation.

 

[spiritualwarrior77]

Don't. Ask for peer-reviewed evidence and actual scientific studies. My word is meaningless, if I can't support it.


I can, and in a moment I will, but I have to ask: why? Your original statement, "[M]utation has never improved a species... ever!" was disproven, so are you now replacing it with "[M]utation has improved a species!" Will you continue to utter the claim that mutation has never improved a species? I'm curious, because all too often people acknowledge their error and accept the facts presented to them... but then go off and make the same demonstrable error.

So, has any mutation improved a bird, cat, human, whale, ant, or aardvark (or something as complex)? Yes. The famous one in humans is sickle cell anaemia, but other examples abound.

• Rats in the West have evolved a biochemical resistances to rat poison (source).
• A mutation that deletes 32 base pairs in humans confers a resistance to HIV, and delays the onset of AIDS (source). This is a good example, as Creationists often wax philosophic about how only an increase in 'information' can grant new traits, how thermodynamics proves that our genes are 'degenerate', how we're always getting worse and worse, etc. Fact is, we're not: not only can our genetic structure increase, but it can be better off with a decrease as well.
• Also in humans, sickle cell anaemia is caused by a point mutation in the β-globin chain that makes up haemoglobin, causing it to form abnormally, which in turn causes the sickle shape of the cell. This confers a detriment, but also confers a major benefit: a resistence to malaria. This is why the disease hasn't died out, especially in those areas where malaria is prevalent - if you have it, you're more likely to live than die because of it, so your mutated genes get passed on, and your children are also more likely to live than die. The mutation spreads over time to the whole population.
• Also in humans is lactose tolerance. Originally, humans grew lactose intolerant after infancy, but the growth of the agricultural lifestyle, and the domestication of cows and goats from which we had a ready supply of nutritous milk, created a selection pressure to prolong this period of lactose tolerance. Over time, we were tolerant for so long that we basically never became intolerant. Now, in the Caucasian population, it's a rarity. In other populations, it's non-existant. In populations where milk was never really a part of the diet at all, lactose intolerance is universal: Native Americans have a 100% prevalence (or did, before interbreeding) of lactose tolerance. While not a mutation we have observed today, the distribution and mechanics of lactose (in)tolerance is easily explainable by evolution, and traceable to mutation.
• Also in humans is the case of an immunity to atherosclerosis (the fattening of the walls of the blood vessels, prevalent with old age) (source). A village in Italy has this trait due to a mutation in a common forefather - and we have identified who this individual was.

I think there has been a misunderstanding.
When it comes to 'micro-evolution' where species adapt to an environment, you have no argument from me! This happens all the time and is obvious!
But 'macro-evolution' where species mutate from one species to another then to another then to another... that's what I question strongly.

IMO, the intention of Darwinism was to excuse racism, to bring in the 'science' of eugenics, and to promote the idea of "survival of the fittest" (social Darwinism).

A clue that this might be the case lies in looking at the full title of Darwin's book Origin Of The Species... it is:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

They don't teach you that in school now do they!

 

[spiritualwarrior77]

For an excellent look at the theory of evolution and some of the myths associated with it, this segment from documentary, Megiddo: The New Age is illuminating.

It starts at the 1:20 mark in the first segment

Megiddo 2 The New Age Pt. 9 of 17 - YouTube
Megiddo 2 The New Age Pt. 10 of 17 - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF5tgKm5BhQ

 

[Mling]

I think there has been a misunderstanding.
When it comes to 'micro-evolution' where species adapt to an environment, you have no argument from me! This happens all the time and is obvious!
But 'macro-evolution' where species mutate from one species to another then to another then to another... that's what I question strongly.

Creationists invented the micro/macro split. Nobody who actually studies evolution recognizes such a difference.

IMO, the intention of Darwinism was to excuse racism, to bring in the 'science' of eugenics, and to promote the idea of "survival of the fittest" (social Darwinism).

A clue that this might be the case lies in looking at the full title of Darwin's book Origin Of The Species... it is:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

They don't teach you that in school now do they!

Uh...yeah, they sometimes do. Because "race" doesn't mean, in that context, what you're trying to imply it means. He's talking about, say, the human race versus other primates. I don't know about Darwin's feelings on race (as we now use the word) but I know that he did not invent "social Darwinism" and that that was a much a misuse of the idea as people bombing abortion clinics are misusing Christianity.

Besides, even if Darwin was a KKK member, that would just be an embarrassment. It wouldn't make fossils or patterns in DNA disappear. Darwin was wrong in some ways, but the reality of evolution still exists. Just like Isaac Newton was wrong in some ways, but stuff still falls.

 

[Gadarene]

IMO, the intention of Darwinism was to excuse racism, to bring in the 'science' of eugenics, and to promote the idea of "survival of the fittest" (social Darwinism).

A clue that this might be the case lies in looking at the full title of Darwin's book Origin Of The Species... it is:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

They don't teach you that in school now do they!

You may want to actually read Darwin at some point.

Quote mining the title like that is at odds with the passages in his work where he comes out clearly against social Darwinism. Hardly his fault his work was later misinterpreted.

 

[spiritualwarrior77]

You may want to actually read Darwin at some point.

Quote mining the title like that is at odds with the passages in his work where he comes out clearly against social Darwinism. Hardly his fault his work was later misinterpreted.

Sorry for my ignorance but could you explain how humans evolved from a lifeless, newly cooled rock, called planet Earth?

How did any life evolve from this?

 

[Gadarene]

Sorry for my ignorance but could you explain how humans evolved from a lifeless, newly cooled rock, called planet Earth?

How did any life evolve from this?

Hang on here - so you're definitely dropping the eugenics claim? Or are at least going to read Darwin before making sweeping claims like that again?

Let's stick to one claim at a time, please.

 

[spiritualwarrior77]

Hang on here - so you're definitely dropping the eugenics claim? Or are at least going to read Darwin before making sweeping claims like that again?

Let's stick to one claim at a time, please.

Ok. Maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully.
What I meant to say was that Darwinism has been used to excuse eugenics.
If I implied this was Darwin's intention, I humbly apologise!

 

[Eudaimonist]

What I meant to say was that Darwinism has been used to excuse eugenics.

And if not Darwin's ideas, it would have been Mendel's ideas on genetics.

But human beings have known for a long time that one could change the physical characteristics of a species through careful selection of what one will allow to breed, for instance with plant crops. That idea was nothing new. Darwin simply gave people an idea of just how much change was actually possible.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mling]

And if not Darwin's ideas, it would have been Mendel's ideas on genetics.

But human beings have known for a long time that one could change the physical characteristics of a species through careful selection of what one will allow to breed, for instance with plant crops. That idea was nothing new.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And in at least one case, I'm pretty sure it's been acted on to manipulate a human experience, without any deliberate forethought: I don't think it's any coincidence that the symptons of Huntington's disease usually only start to show up in the 40's. Throughout most of human history, a person would have already had a few kids been by then. Or, more to the point, the person's sibling, who started showing signs at 15 of the disease that had so publically and viciously killed his father, grandmother and aunt, would *not* be getting many chances to procreate.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think there has been a misunderstanding.
When it comes to 'micro-evolution' where species adapt to an environment, you have no argument from me! This happens all the time and is obvious!
But 'macro-evolution' where species mutate from one species to another then to another then to another... that's what I question strongly.

Your objection is a moving target.

First, you said that no mutation has ever improved a species. I showed that, in fact, they have.
Next, you then asked if mutations have improved complex species. I showed that, indeed, they have.
Now you're saying that microevolution (the thing you rejected in your previous two statements, and microevolution is the direct result of mutation and natural selection) is true, and it's macroevolution that's false. I wonder what'll happen when I show that it is, in fact, true?

Speciation is an example of macroevolution, and this is readily demonstrable in the lab, as well as in nature. TalkOrigins has a convenient list, but the examples are endless. The Hawthorn fly, for instance, has speciated due to the introduction of new fruits (source). The cichlid fish has speciated by water clarity (source). Palm trees on the same island have speciated based on soil preference (source). All are instances of speciation, and of macroevolution. It's not some hypothetical, long-term consequence of the theory, it's an observable phenomenon.

IMO, the intention of Darwinism was to excuse racism, to bring in the 'science' of eugenics, and to promote the idea of "survival of the fittest" (social Darwinism).

Can you prove this?

Let's say it's true, just for kicks. Would that affect the veracity of the theory?

A clue that this might be the case lies in looking at the full title of Darwin's book Origin Of The Species... it is:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

They don't teach you that in school now do they!

Yes, they do. 'Race', in Darwin's era, referred to varieties within a species, not just human races as the term is used today. For example, on page X, this is how Darwin used the word:

"Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock." - On the Origin of Species, p15.

Clearly, Darwin was advocating a racial purge of the cabbages.

 

[spiritualwarrior77]

Your objection is a moving target.

First, you said that no mutation has ever improved a species. I showed that, in fact, they have.
Next, you then asked if mutations have improved complex species. I showed that, indeed, they have.
Now you're saying that microevolution (the thing you rejected in your previous two statements, and microevolution is the direct result of mutation and natural selection) is true, and it's macroevolution that's false. I wonder what'll happen when I show that it is, in fact, true?

Speciation is an example of macroevolution, and this is readily demonstrable in the lab, as well as in nature. TalkOrigins has a convenient list, but the examples are endless. The Hawthorn fly, for instance, has speciated due to the introduction of new fruits (source). The cichlid fish has speciated by water clarity (source). Palm trees on the same island have speciated based on soil preference (source). All are instances of speciation, and of macroevolution. It's not some hypothetical, long-term consequence of the theory, it's an observable phenomenon.


Can you prove this?

Let's say it's true, just for kicks. Would that affect the veracity of the theory?


Yes, they do. 'Race', in Darwin's era, referred to varieties within a species, not just human races as the term is used today. For example, on page X, this is how Darwin used the word:

"Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock." - On the Origin of Species, p15.

Clearly, Darwin was advocating a racial purge of the cabbages.

Can you tell me how a rock mutates into a human?!?!

Even over a very looonnnnggg time!