Topic: Stanley Miller

[mark]

    Mutations are mistakes which have never produced a long term benefit. Even examples of "beneficial" mutations, such as sickle cell anemia (a fatal disease which imparts a resistance to malaria) do not create new features or improve overall survivability. One hundred years of experimentation has shown that mutations (birth defects) can not develop new organisms or even cause useful changes to existing organisms This is because mutations never add useful information. They are exactly analogous to random misspellings in a book. Therefore this mechanism for evolution, even in combination with natural selection, fails to explain how new functional structures could arise.

[WinterSerenity]

mutations have been proven to be useful to different spieces. how else would they adapt to changing environments? evolution. evolution is the process of mutation so that something can learn to survive.

go here for some examples

http://www.uky.edu/KGS/education/tertiary%20quaternary%20mammal%20evolution.htm

[mark]

That's not evolution my deary, adaptation yes, it was information already in DNA ( PUT THERE BY GOD) to adapt to changing environments. those are the same KINDS of animals. A horse is a horse, A dog is a dog etc....

[Coyote]

There's a really neat museum at Harvard University called, "The Museum of Comparisons."  For instance they have the prehistoric skeleton of an alligator next to the skeleton of a modern alligator and you can see how the alligator changed (adapted?  evolved?) over time.  They have horse, whale, dog, about every prehistoric animal skeleton you can think of and the modern comparison.  So, If you are ever in Boston, you should go check it out to be convinced that animals didn't turn into different animals over time.

That's not evolution my deary, adaptation yes, it was information already in DNA ( PUT THERE BY GOD) to adapt to changing environments. those are the same KINDS of animals. A horse is a horse, A dog is a dog etc....

[WinterSerenity]

That's not evolution my deary, adaptation yes, it was information already in DNA ( PUT THERE BY GOD) to adapt to changing environments. those are the same KINDS of animals. A horse is a horse, A dog is a dog etc....

evolution is adaptation is mutation is changing over time to survive in what ever environment the creature is in.

[mark]

What you speak of is sometimes termed "Micro Evolution". Almost all high school biology books use examples of micro-evolution such as finch beak variations as an example of evolution. Yet nothing really new is ever created. How can breeding existing characteristics transform a bird or a dog into some completely different type of creature?
    The next time you see the word "evolution", examine how it it being used. Is it  the modification of already existing features (which proves nothing about the origin of those features), or is it a bait and switch where micro-evolution is used as "proof" of macro-evolution (for which there is no proof).

[fish]

but species do not evolve into new species.

[Digital Narcosis]

Not in your lifetime no.

but species do not evolve into new species.

[fish]

not in anyone's lifetime

[Coyote]

Only butterflys

[mark]

    A powerful example of the evidence for creation is the interdependence of the parts within an organism. Could completely different yet fully functioning parts of an organism have all arisen in a step-by-step fashion? If not,  their origin must have been simultaneous creation. The butterfly is a perfect example. How could some worm- like creature have mutated with both the ability and desire to seal itself inside a cocoon? For either to happen would require thousands of simultaneous and useful changes to the chemical structure of this mysterious "pre-butterfly" type creature. What would have happened to some worm-like creature that sealed itself inside a cocoon but did not yet have the ability to rearrange its bio-matter into an adult butterfly?  This information had to have been programed into the creatures DNA by God!   P.S. Thanks for the Butterfly's God.

[What_The?]

Science is BS!

No wait, science is right!

No, wait, wait, science is BS unless is specifically proves something in the Bible, then it's great!

Christians: Cherry picking their beliefs since they realized they would have to stone adulterers.

[mark]

   Why don't you try answering some of my questions (like I do yours) instead of just coming on here mouthing because you don't know?

[What_The?]

   Why don't you try answering some of my questions (like I do yours) instead of just coming on here mouthing because you don't know?

Because I do know, unlike you, who merely gets his authority from others without ever truly understanding one bit of what he copies and pastes, yet feels like a big man because he can find something from someone who can back up what you think.

As I've said before, you have no moral authority of your own, only that which you cherry pick from others.

You have no intellectual authority of your own, only that which you cherry pick from others.

Discuss any religious issue without referring to the Bible or copying from a creationist.

Can you?

[mark]

   Nothing (again) huh!

[WinterSerenity]

what the has a valid arguement there mark. it's you who is spouting nothingness. try paying attention for once instead of hearing what you want to hear.

[mark]

  What is his argument?

[mark]

  I read back trough his posts to try and figure out what we are arguing about and 9 out of 10 say I'm dumb, I copy and he's knows everything. Please share some of this knowledge!

[Coyote]

What is the validity of his argument?

what the has a valid arguement there mark. it's you who is spouting nothingness. try paying attention for once instead of hearing what you want to hear.

[What_The?]

It's pretty common among those who are empty shells, those barely able to cope with reality, people who create rigid walls of
authoritarianism borrowed from whatever source they can best scare those they wish to intimidate. 

Typically you'll find they are the weakest willed and slowest thinkers.  In order to mask their shortcomings, they latch onto the
strength and will of others.  They prop themselves up on the authority that is unquestionable (in their minds) so that they can try to
dominate the weak willed and mentally challenged, or to try and keep up with the smarter and more liberal people they typically debate with.

Typically, they use it to try and dominate their spouses and children.

That's why you'll either find them divorced or with the mousiest weak willed wallflower in town.

That's also why you'll find their children are the stereotypical party animals at night when daddy thinks they are at the library. 

I'm willing to bet, not even knowing Mark or who he is, that at least one, if not both, of these are true.

Either he's divorced or he's married to a wallflower, and his kid(s) are running around drinking, doing drugs and fornicating with the local bad boys/sluts.

[silvanusmoonspirit]

None of us were there at the beginning.  We do not know 100% of what happened to cause life.  There is the scientific side of the argument and then there is the religious side of the argument.  Neither one is 100% correct.  It is up to the individual to decide what to believe in.  Education needs to stick to academics, however, and teach scientifically.  If people want their children to learn about creationism, then send them to church.

[fish]

and both sides need to be debated/discussed in school. why not? It makes perfect sense that there is a Creator.

[WinterSerenity]

both sides do not need to be discussed in school. kids won't learn anything but how to debate an endless topic. that's not what they need when growing up. there are so many different ideas that surround the topic that it will get the classes no where. if the parents want their kids to learn about creationism, let them teach it at home or at church.

[fish]

they don't need to learn to question? form opinions,principles. they don't need to learn to stand by their principles? they don't need to consider the opposing argument and agree or rule it  out? Then any theory or thought on the origin of the universe should not be taught. If parents want their kids to learn evolution, let them teach it at home. kids don't need more substandard education at school.

[WinterSerenity]

religion has no place being taught in a public school. if you want your child to learn about creationism, send them to a private school.

[ECOGEEK54]

Mark, man, you are thoroughly fixated on plexpedia.com.  I wonder how some of you would do on a face to face discussion, w/o internet.  But, that's neither here nor there.  The current discussion, I guess, is whether both sides need to be taught in school.  There are not enough hours in the school day to teach every creation story on the face of the planet at this time.  Then what, after you taught them?  Micro-evolution is, by definition, a form of evolution.  We have witnessed this, we haven't witnessed "macro-evolution" because of the amount of time it would take.  Ol' Darwin, by the way, does mention a creator in "Origin of Species" if any of you bothered to read the darn thing.  C'mon, you challenge us to read the Bible.  This is...less poetic, but still informative.  But, again, not the argument. 
The sole purpose of science is questioning, then, using the scientific method to answer those questions. 

For example:  Does Praying for patients help them recover faster?
I chose this because I see "thank you notes" posted all over the hospital thanking for special prayers.  Several experiments have been done, all with no proof.  In the latest test, there were three groups of a total of 1800 people, all of which had coronary bipass surgery.  The specs of the experiment and the results were published in the American Heart Journal of April, 2006.

http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/amhj/abstract.00000406-200604000-00041.htm;jsessionid=LbfBF2XDjHLWNLZjxfmy4X2bvGMJg8vJw2X5dJ6KyLpT33x2Q1mv!1455807198!181195628!8091!-1

Now, I'm not trying to prove nor disprove deity, this is just an example of how an experiment is done.  Evolution of life (Which many people somehow confuse with the Big Bang) is taught because it is the only plausible working model we have.  In the past, an invisible supernatural being was acceptable to explain why things happened; and before that, drawing on the cave wall to have a successful hunt.  All of this was followed by “don’t step on a crack, or you’ll fall and break your back.”  I know the last one is true because I know a guy who had a girlfriend of a half brother who had a friend who saw someone break their back after stepping on one.  (Kidding, BTW) 

The United States of America was founded on science in the Age of Enlightenment, where many of the founding fathers “discarded past superstitions.”  Most of them were Deists.  Here are some neat-o quotes:

“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man” Thomas Jefferson
“Lighthouses are more useful than churches.” Ben Franklin

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." James Madison
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father in the womb in a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."  Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams

[Digital Narcosis]

The last two sentences aren't really necessary are they?

There isn't much need really to pick a fight and degenerate the topic into chaos.

It's pretty common among those who are empty shells, those barely able to cope with reality, people who create rigid walls of
authoritarianism borrowed from whatever source they can best scare those they wish to intimidate. 

Typically you'll find they are the weakest willed and slowest thinkers.  In order to mask their shortcomings, they latch onto the
strength and will of others.  They prop themselves up on the authority that is unquestionable (in their minds) so that they can try to
dominate the weak willed and mentally challenged, or to try and keep up with the smarter and more liberal people they typically debate with.

Typically, they use it to try and dominate their spouses and children.

That's why you'll either find them divorced or with the mousiest weak willed wallflower in town.

That's also why you'll find their children are the stereotypical party animals at night when daddy thinks they are at the library. 

I'm willing to bet, not even knowing Mark or who he is, that at least one, if not both, of these are true.

Either he's divorced or he's married to a wallflower, and his kid(s) are running around drinking, doing drugs and fornicating with the local bad boys/sluts.

[mark]

Click on  "Evolution"  at the bottom of this page and read !   

[mark]

 Found this interesting! The Stanley Miller thread from Sept. 2008.  People still haven't learned anything!

[ebilly99]

Found this interesting! The Stanley Miller thread from Sept. 2008.  People still haven't learned anything!

No you have not. The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler organic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment concerning the experimental abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]

Click on  "Evolution"  at the bottom of this page and read !