Eye Gouge Psychology - Soldier's Story on TV

Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by Slindsay, Jul 14, 2008.

  1. Bowed-N-Bloody

    Bowed-N-Bloody New Member


    http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/human-body/how-many-chromosomes-there-human-body-cell

    Oh...okay...I see what he was saying now...The way he had it worded it seemed as if he meant there are 20 chromosomes in the human body and Down Syndrome produces an extra chromosome being the "extra 21st chromosome"...:p I apologize...I was wrong, in saying that it cannot be an "extra 21st chromosome"...

    That changes the argument...(and makes alot more sense now)...haha

    Still that does not prove that anything new was created. As a matter of fact it shows a case of "mutation" where nothing new is created...So knowing this it still supports my argument. The 21st chromosome is duplicated too many times, thus causing Down Syndrome. Already existing chromosomes are duplicated, but no new chromosome is formed. It is nothing new just extra...

    Again I specially apologize to PASmith for missunderstanding what he was saying.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2008
  2. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Why don't you just post the appropriate link WITH the text?

    Don't just throw us a link bomb and then expect us to associate the text to the link!

    Well to save me from repeating my error, can you COPY AND PASTE the text from the link I posted which you claim does not support evolution? Then can you explain to me exactly how it does not support evolution.

    'Evolutionists' are biologists!

    Evolution is part of biology, hence its name: evolutionary biology!

    You misquoted Darwin. You either were being dishonest or you were just copying from creationist web sites without checking the information. When dealing with science why not cite scientific web sites and books?

    Are you actually reading what I said?

    You quoted the part where Darwin introduced a potential problem with the evolution of the eye...

    "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

    ...but you ended the quote there, so to give the impression Darwin was admitting the eye could not have evolved. However in the very next paragraph, Darwin explains exactly why this is not a a problem:

    "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)"
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2008
  3. Bowed-N-Bloody

    Bowed-N-Bloody New Member

    Okay then, I'll do better...:D

    No...It wasn't what you posted, I was speaking of what I posted earlier.

    Natural selection does not support evolution because it produces nothing new. Evolution produces new things that were non-existing before, (organs, cells, etc.)...but since natural selection does not cannot produce these new things that evolution requires by definition then natural selection cannot support evolution.

    I was speaking of evolutionists in terms of the common ppl (like you and I), who are followers, but not actually scientist.


    What I quoted went along with other things, that I decided not to post because I didn't think I needed to...So I guess that made what I posted seem "out of place"...but here I will post the entire thing....


    I think the links that I posted just now are in some way "connected" to creationalist thinking, but this section is about "Scientific Evidence Against Evolution"...so it is not at all dominated by bias creationalist beliefs, but looks for a scientific answer.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2008
  4. Topher

    Topher allo!

    You've COMPLETELY misunderstood what natural selection is.

    Mutations create the information.

    Natural selection selects the beneficial mutations. Natural selection itself does not create anything.

    Together, mutations and natural selection are the driving force evolution. Harmful changes are not selected, beneficial changes are selected. Even though most mutations are harmful or benign, over geological timespans the few beneficial mutations that there are drive species to improve.

    Why refer to non-scientists rather than actual scientists?! Would you refer to a non-mechanic to asses your car?

    I don't see how anything else could have changed the fact that you did not use the entire quote which was key to the very point Darwin was making.

    And this is complete nonsense. We know how eyes evolved. In fact they have evolved multiple times independently from each other! Each change of the evolution of the eye would be beneficial to the user, as explain in these videos:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA"]Creationism Disproved? - YouTube[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM-LcQZHg1M"]YouTube[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4W8"]The evolution of eyes - YouTube[/ame]

    This is irreducible complexity, and it is simply wrong.

    Did you watch the Ken Miller video I posted? He explains EXACTLY how and why it is wrong.

    This essay also refutes it: http://www.rationalresponders.com/irreducible_complexity_reduced_to_absurdity
     
  5. Yatezy

    Yatezy One bad mamba jamba

  6. Bowed-N-Bloody

    Bowed-N-Bloody New Member

    Mutations do not create new information. Do you have any cases/examples that show this? Because I have never seen any. See you even said it yourself
    Okay since we both agree to this that natural selection does not create anything alone, then we look for a "helper" to give it what it needs to create.

    But you claim that this "helper" of natural selection is mutations when that is impossible because mutations do not create new information. I have not seen any beneficial mutations. (Could you please give me an example?) And based upon your logic then therefore natural selection and mutation cannot be used to support evolution. Because
    Oh and as for watching the videos...I was not able to watch the videos because my computer is not allowing me to get on youtube or look at anything from youtube...But I will try it again at a later time...
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2008
  7. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Well then you haven't done your research OR looked at the links I've already posted which demonstrate beneficial mutations:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

    This article is good: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Mutations_don't_add_information

    Here is a New Scientist article: http://www.newscientist.com/channel...s-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

    I'll think you find I didn't

    This is a false claim born of your ignorance of evolution.

    Examples of beneficial mutations: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

    The videos on the evolution of the eye also provide examples:
    1. Being able to detect light from no light would be beneficial from not being about to detect light at all.
    2. Being able to detect the direction of light would be beneficial from just detecting light from no light.
    3. Being able to focus light into a faint image would be beneficial from being able to just detect the direction of light.
    4. Being able to focus light into a sharp image would be beneficial from being able just focus a faint image.

    Each of these stages are beneficial mutations that not only can happen, they have happened, multiple times independently from each other.

    We've also witnessed E.coli evolve beneficial mutations recently: http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
     
  8. Bowed-N-Bloody

    Bowed-N-Bloody New Member

    These still do not support anything new being formed. Sure the sites say that something new is formed because they give you the beginning of something and then give you the end and say that something new has formed.
    Let's take into consideration the mutations in ppl shall we. It is said that after millions and millions of years of mutation and natural selection evolution happens. What mutations happen in humans that are benefitial? Lets say that there are benefitial mutations in humans (could you please give me an example if there are any?)...

    (this quote and the others following come from...http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut02.htm#Neo-Darwinists
    That brings up other questions...According to evolutionalist how long has the Earth been around? How long have humans been around?

    Any cases of mutations being benefitial to humans?

     
  9. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Again I specially apologize to PASmith for missunderstanding what he was saying.

    No need to apologise. Just admit that you've regugitated some creationist propaganda that is actually wrong. :)

    Any cases of mutations being benefitial to humans?

    Yes. Every single facet of your being. Honed, shaved and refined so as to be beneficial.
    From the length of your legs to the shape of you teeth and everything in between.

    That brings up other questions...According to evolutionalist how long has the Earth been around? How long have humans been around?

    According to SCIENCE the earth is around 4.5 billion years.
    Humans have been around for maybe 150,000 - 200,000 years depending on personal preference.

    I have to say that the stuff you post is so full of holes it's tricky to know where to start. It shows such a superficial and biased understanding of evolutionary theory that we'd need to go back to the very basics to make in-roads and I've not got the time for that at the moment.
    Good debate though.
     
  10. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Mutations are very rare.

    For a start that is just flat out false. Flimsy propaganda of the worst sort.
    I'll assume we are mostly male (I am and I think Topher is)?
    That means you have created MANY mutations in the time it's taken you to read this post.
    Everytime you make sperm you introduce mutations into your genetic potential.
    That's not a "point of view" or a "belief" like your creationist schtick.
    It's a fact.
     
  11. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

  12. Topher

    Topher allo!

    There are mutations that make certain people resistant to the HIV/AIDS virus.

    Mutations are rare? Not quite: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB100.html and http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Mutations_are_rare

    Answered by PASmith.

    There have been all sorts in humans, we would not have even survived without them. I refer you to my previous example. Literally any mutation that aids survival would be beneficial no matter how small.
     
  13. Bowed-N-Bloody

    Bowed-N-Bloody New Member

    That which was regurgitated was scientific, it was neither creationist or evolutionist. We were talking about chromosomes at the time so I posted facts about chromosomes, as I will later do with sperm.

    No, "cases" of benefitial mutations...(i.e. a case would be considered Down Syndrome).

    What is this based upon?...Carbon Dating?...This is such an inconsistent method.

    Below is a link which talks about the strengths and weaknesses of various dating methods.
    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_6.htm

    Everything you have posted is biased towards evolutionalism and full of holes.

    There is no fact to what you just said. That goes against science and is neither evolutionalist nor creationists, but in fact of your own twisted misconception of biology. You seem to be mixing up the formation of sperm and eggs (meiosis) and mutation (rearranging or deleting existing DNA information) all together. This is in fact your twisted point of view, your belief, your flimsy propoganda...but this is not fact which you present.

    Here is a link about replication of sperm and egg cells. This is neither creationist nor evolutionist anything...It is simply biology. It is simply fact.http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/toms_fungi/anneg.html

    My computer is messing up...(viruses, spyware, and pop-ups are tearing it a new one). It will not allow me to look at the videos or listen to the "radio thingy" you posted. But I will be vigil and continue to try and listen and look at the things that were posted. :D

    What are these mutations? Hey! the links you posted this time were waaayyy shorter than the other ones...:p

    What are they basing this upon? These are just estimations. If you claim that mutations happen like this and don't provide any evidence (names?, what changed?, benefits?, before, during, and after?) then these claims are just empty assumptions, opinions, beliefs, point of views,...theories...

    Just think .:thinking:..If this thread had never been here then we would not be able exchange this information. We would not be learning as much as we are. (this amazes me) :D
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2008
  14. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    We were talking about chromosomes...

    Not really. You said "Mutations cannot add on anything". My example of down syndrome disproved that. Listen to that "In our time" I posted up. In it you'll find an example of a mutation due to a splicing in of new/additional genetic material (the white eyed fruit fly).
    When you say "Mutations cannot add on anything" you are just simply wrong.

    No, "cases" of benefitial mutations...(i.e. a case would be considered Down Syndrome).

    Now you see I think you are thinking that a "mutation" HAS to be something big (like down syndrome). Something very noticable. Something noticable enough to be considered a "case". Perhaps you've watched X-Men too many times?
    Mutation is not like that. A mutation that means I produce 0.01% more amylase is still a mutation but would not be recognisable as a "case" in the same way as down syndrome.
    However such a mutation could still have an effect on my survival and ability to reproduce and could therefore be favoured by natural selection.

    What is this based upon?...Carbon Dating?...This is such an inconsistent method.

    The age of the earth and the age of "humans" are both verified by seperate and mutually supporting methods. Science works like that.
    One method (molecular biology for example) "says" one thing.
    Another method (comparative anatomy maybe) "says" another thing.
    Still another (paleantology perhaps) "says" another thing.
    Across the board these methods concur with each other (with appropriate error bars given the gargantuan lengths of time we are talking about).

    There is no fact to what you just said. That goes against science and is neither evolutionalist nor creationists, but in fact of your own twisted misconception of biology. You seem to be mixing up the formation of sperm and eggs (meiosis) and mutation (rearranging or deleting existing DNA information) all together.

    Erm...listen to that "In our time". If my misconception of biology is twisted then so is the misconception of Steve Jones. Have you heard of Steve Jones?
    Professor of genetics and head of the biology department at University College London? Personally I think he knows a little bit more about biology than you do.
    I'm not mixing anything up. The example of sperm production is to show how mutation can be introduced into the gene pool. It shows how prevelant mutation really is.
    You said mutation is very rare.
    Steve Jones says that it is VERY common.
    I know his credentials. I've read some of his books. The man knows what he is on about.

    Therefore I surmise that Steve Jones offers a better view of the world in regards to the prevelence of "mutation" than you do.
     
  15. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    erm. by "eye gouge" do you just mean poking someone in the eyes or actually gouging their eyes out? Id do the fore but I doubt i could bring myself to do the latter even in a fight for my life. I doubt stabbing someone is exactly fun but id prefer that to causing such an injury with my bare hands. And i imagine that even if i did do it it'd probably haunt me for quite a while
     
  16. Topher

    Topher allo!

    I think you're just dodging having to deal with the videos/media posted.

    First YouTube didn't work for you... now your computer is messing up. Perhaps you HAVE watch them but don't want to have to respond to them.

    Viruses, spyware, pop-ups, etc, would not restrict you from watching YouTube videos or listening to audio files.

    Now, lets drops the excuses and watch the videos, that is if you're being honest and want to learn.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg"]Ken Miller on Intelligent Design - YouTube[/ame]

    Some people are resistant to certain strains of HIV.[42] One example of how this occurs is people with the CCR5-Δ32 mutation; these people are resistant to infection with R5 virus as the mutation stops HIV from binding to this coreceptor, reducing its ability to infect target cells.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

    Read the peer-review paper cited in the link.
    http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297
     
  17. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

  18. Bowed-N-Bloody

    Bowed-N-Bloody New Member

    SORRY ABOUT ALL OF THE POSTS, BUT IT WOULD NOT LET ME PUT IT ALL INTO ONE POST...:p

    [OUOTE]After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none changes the fruit fly into a different species. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_10b.htm[/QUOTE]

    What is meant by this? “In it you'll find an example of a mutation due to a splicing in of new/additional genetic material (the white eyed fruit fly).”- By “splicing” do you mean human intervention? How long did the flies live? Did they produce offspring? Did the offspring produce offspring or die? Let’s say there was no human intervention at all ALL, and that the changes "just happened". How does having white eyes improve the fruit flies? It is only a change within the species like (big dogs and little dogs, or birds with short beaks and birds with long beaks). It does not change the flies into anything else, (dogs into cats, birds into horses, flowers into trees), therefore it does not prove that mutations can change a species. The flies were still flies. They did not change into anything.

    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut02.htm

    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/preface2.htm

    Your example of Down Syndrome did not disprove anything. The 21st chromosome is copied an extra time. Nothing NEW is added.

    AAAAAGGGHHHHH!!! I still am unable to listen to the “In Our Time” radio special…(do you have a link that has what they said in written form? [it would be much appreciated])….

    No I do not think mutation HAS to be big.
    Okay, let me explain…a case like “the extra 21st chromosome results in down syndrome”…what does something such as “0.01% more amylase” produce? What effect does it have?

    It is possible that his conception of biology is twisted…(But I cannot say that because I do not know what he said in his “radio thingy”, because I have not heard it yet.) No, I have not heard of Steve Jones...I do not question that he knows more about biology than me.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2008
  19. Bowed-N-Bloody

    Bowed-N-Bloody New Member

    Okay you should have further explained that you meant this earlier… “The example of sperm production is to show how mutation “can” be introduced into the gene pool.” Okay then, mutation “can be introduced”...that means nothing. Just because mutation “can” be introduced, doesn’t mean that mutation will happen. “You can bring a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.”
    Let’s think for a moment…These things that are added are from already existing data, unless the data is rearranged or something is missing it is not mutation (unless of course you are an “X-man”). Let’s dream for a moment, okay let’s say that every new sperm that was created by a man (his name will be...Wil :p) just happened to mutate. What is the probability that any of them will be “beneficial”? What is the probability of those that would be neutral? Knowing that today, genetic mutations are observed to be almost always information-depleting (i.e. destructive). What is the probability of those that would be destructive? Knowing that mutations in the reproductive organs occur far less often than anywhere else. How many benefitial mutations would have to occur to produce a new species? What would these mutations do, What would they change?

    Keep in mind...
    Though I was not able to listen to the recording I was able to scroll down and read the responses. Have these questions been answered?

     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2008
  20. Bowed-N-Bloody

    Bowed-N-Bloody New Member

    I am appauled that you would think that I want to avoid watching the videos, or listen to anything, as through this whole discussion I have been visiting the links you have provided trying to learn and understand your basis of thinking. And I have quickly refuted the things inwhich you present to me. Why would this be any different?

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg"]Ken Miller on Intelligent Design - YouTube[/ame]

    What did you do to the link this time?...I don't know if it had anything to me restarting the computer and running a virus scan or what...But finally I WAS ABLE TO WATCH THIS VIDEO.

    THIS MAY BE LONG BUT BEAR WITH ME...
    First of all...Hahahaha...This guy is funny...What is his name?...He is a quick slick talker. He should have been a comedian or con-artist, rather than a biologist.
    On a Serious note...He makes it seem as if everyone against evolutionary theory is against science. After learning the definition of creationist/Inteligent Design I am not a creationist nor a intelligent designist...As all of the things they believe I do not. I am more of an anti-evolutionary pro-science christian. (As I believe that science explains the work of God.)
    The concept that evolving from animals would cause us to be imoral did not come from creationist but infact Darwin himself.
    The man in which everyone of his followers base their very hopes and dreams upon infact himself questioned his own theories credibility. But yet the creationists are ostracized for their choice to get his very own thoughts out to the public. Hmmm…
     

Share This Page