There Is Scientific Proof of a Creator. Evolution Can Be Disproved

Sure Shot said:

What about the fact that everything has imperfections, even the female reproductive system?
What about the fact that seemingly every law in nature, has an exception?
Since imperfections are natural, homosexuality, by relation, is natural.

If you read the article I cited earlier, there is a great explanation as to how these genes pass on in the siblings of gay people.

Here it is;

"Important new evidence on a plausible mechanism for the evolution of "gay genes" has emerged from the work of Camperio-Ciani.[23] They found in two large, independent studies that the female relatives of homosexual men tended to have significantly more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother's side tended to have more offspring than those on the father's side. This indicates that females carrying a putative "gay genes" complex are more fecund than women lacking this complex of genes, and thereby can compensate for any decreased fertility of the males carrying the genes. This is a well known phenomenon in evolution known as "sexual antagonism", and has been widely documented for many traits that are advantageous in one sex but not in the other. This provides solid experimental evidence of how "gay genes" could not only survive but thrive over the course of evolution."

Click to expand...

Common sense would say that the more kids u have the more likely u are to have a gay child. Man people who figure statistics are so full of shit. There is too many variables to come to any conclusions and likely too small a test group anyways.

Pipe Dream said:

Common sense would say that the more kids u have the more likely u are to have a gay child. Man people who figure statistics are so full of shit. There is too many variables to come to any conclusions and likely too small a test group anyways.

Click to expand...

That is not what this study suggest.
Rather that siblings of gay individuals have a higher sex drive passing on those same genes, however dormant.
Ya, probability mathematics is for nerds.

That's why we are trying to have a discussion on the variables.
"Two, large independent studies"

86% of all statistics are made up, 74% of all people know that.

guy incognito said:

86% of all statistics are made up, 74% of all people know that.

Click to expand...

The disregard associated with statistics is not from scientific studies.
Rather, it is from bias, and usually political polls, and claims made buy salesmen.
Yes, statistics can be fiddled with.
But, this is not the scientific method, and no self-respecting scientist would do so.

It was a humor joke.

guy incognito said:

It was a humor joke.

Click to expand...

A damned good one as well...ROTFLMFAO

Thanx guy...I needed that

Namaste'

guy incognito said:

It was a humor joke.

Click to expand...

I know it. (should have posted LOL)
I just didn't want anyone misinterpreting the facts.

Heisenberg said:

So can someone enlighten me? Why has evolution preserved homosexuality?

Click to expand...

Well for starters, it is unclear how much of human homosexuality has to do with genetics vs. say, hormonal influences during embryonic development. Also, since homosexuality doesn't mean that an individual won't reproduce, it is easy to see how such a trait can persist. It may not offer an fitness advantage, but it might not be a significant enough disadvantage, making the trait neutral wrt fitness. Traits that are selected for by the opposite sex might be linked to homosexuality. Sexual selection can favor traits that actually reduce fitness, the peacock's tail is the typical example.

mindphuk said:

Well for starters, it is unclear how much of human homosexuality has to do with genetics vs. say, hormonal influences during embryonic development. Also, since homosexuality doesn't mean that an individual won't reproduce, it is easy to see how such a trait can persist. It may not offer an fitness advantage, but it might not be a significant enough disadvantage, making the trait neutral wrt fitness. Traits that are selected for by the opposite sex might be linked to homosexuality. Sexual selection can favor traits that actually reduce fitness, the peacock's tail is the typical example.

Click to expand...

You my friend have an inate ability to expand ones mind and thoughts ....you too SS

Blessings to our community as well

Namaste'

mindphuk said:

Well for starters, it is unclear how much of human homosexuality has to do with genetics vs. say, hormonal influences during embryonic development. Also, since homosexuality doesn't mean that an individual won't reproduce, it is easy to see how such a trait can persist. It may not offer an fitness advantage, but it might not be a significant enough disadvantage, making the trait neutral wrt fitness. Traits that are selected for by the opposite sex might be linked to homosexuality. Sexual selection can favor traits that actually reduce fitness, the peacock's tail is the typical example.

Click to expand...

Hrmm so evolution could foster homosexuality as a result of features the opposite sex finds attractive. That is extremely interesting. Looks like your also saying homosexuality could be caused by conditions evolution itself has little control over. Thanks for helping put it into a better context for me. When such a logical person as myself who looks critically at every aspect of the world completely doesn't understand his very existence... well lets just say it sucks.

Heisenberg said:

Hrmm so evolution could foster homosexuality as a result of features the opposite sex finds attractive. That is extremely interesting. Looks like your also saying homosexuality could be caused by conditions evolution itself has little control over. Thanks for helping put it into a better context for me. When such a logical person as myself who looks critically at every aspect of the world completely doesn't understand his very existence... well lets just say it sucks.

Click to expand...

The problem is, without really understanding what causes homosexuality in the first place, everything is just speculation. It's okay to say we just don't know. The problem is that people tend to want to fill in the blanks so make shit up that corresponds to their personal belief.

I suggest reading The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene. Both books give a good explanations of certain evolutionary concepts that defy common sense. Sexual selection is given considerable space in TBW since it can create so many apparent anomalies. TSG presents a hypothesis that can help us understand things like altruism and self-sacrifice, something else that seems to go counter to what we would expect if the goal of the gene is to propagate itself.

Heisenberg said:

When such a logical person as myself who looks critically at every aspect of the world completely doesn't understand his very existence... well lets just say it sucks.

Click to expand...

My sentiments, exactly!
This all started for me at a young age, with a little prayer, I was told to recite.
"Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take."
It's these 2 sentences, that sparked years of inner turmoil.

I find I must either exhaust or distract my mind at night.
This is in order to sleep, without my mind screaming it's fears of mortality.
Every question has multiple answers and every answer brings up new questions.

Humans believe they are self-aware, but I believe the opposite is vastly true.

Found this in another thread and thought it deserved more coverage.

ANC said:

Washington - The US space agency has created a buzz with its announcement of a news conference on Thursday to discuss a scientific finding that relates to the hunt for life beyond the planet Earth.
"Nasa will hold a news conference at 14:00 EST (19:00 GMT) on Thursday, December 2, to discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life," it said on its website.
Space enthusiasts and believers in alien life took to the blogosphere in a flurry of speculation over the potential meaning of the announcement, though Nasa declined to elaborate further.
Those scheduled to speak included Mary Voytek, who heads Nasa's astrobiology programme; Felisa Wolfe-Simon, a Nasa astrobiology research fellow from the US Geological Survey; and Pamela Conrad, an astrobiologist at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre.
Astrobiology relates to the study of life in the universe, including its origin and evolution, where it is located and how it might survive in the future.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-167_Astrobiology.html

Click to expand...

Sure Shot said:

Found this in another thread and thought it deserved more coverage.

Click to expand...

Outstanding...thanx ss

Namaste'

mindphuk said:

@crackerboy, seriously, did you ever stop and think that even those videos you posted are people that are trying to convince you using logic and reason? Of course it's not their rational arguments that convince you they are right, it is their ideology because their use of logic break downs on close examination. Their arguments are flimsy and are merely used as an excuse to allow you to dismiss evolution, and I guess abiogenesis, the big bang and everything else that creationists attempt to paint as "Dawinism." There's a reason these types of arguments are made by scientists on DI videos on youtube rather than in journals like Nature, Science, or one of the hundreds of journals related to cell and molecular biology, genetics, embryology, or biochemistry. These are the places that real criticism to anything pertaining to modern evolutionary theory would take place.

Click to expand...

Look those videos are not the only resource that I have. Those where just the most convenient for me to post as examples that there is an alternative opinion in the scientific community to evolution.

So because those video's covered so much information I would like to start with the theory of chemical evolution. The theory that all life formed from basic minerals in the ocean.
Scientist have attempted to demonstrate how life could have arisen from nonliving material. Some of these scientists have had some success in producing simple biomonomers in a laboratory, this is a far cry from real world circumstances since they exclude many other damaging elements. Problems of concentration of minerals, stability of the environment, as well as specific mirror image make the possibility of chemical evolution unlikely.
A scientist named Harold Morrowitz did a calculation of the probability of spontaneous organization of organic molecules to form a very simple microbe such as Escherichia coli is only 1 followed by 100,000 million zero's. Needless to say that statistically it is an improbability that such evolution could occur in this primordial soup. This problem further compounds when you consider the requirement for hundreds and in some cases thousands of chemical changes working together simultaneously in a simple cell.

Dude, there is no evidence here. Just a shit load of bald assertions, bad science and logical fallacies..
In your own words, without posting links to hour long I.D propaganda videos, tell me what evidence there is.

Posting links to videos that have all been thoroughly debunked many times by people far more reputable than those who made them, videos that have ZERO evidence or logic, Is not evidence of anything other than your own ignorance.

Do you know why ID was thrown out of court? Do you know why none of the claims made by any ID proponent have ever made it in to a peer reviewed journal?
Because they have no evidence, it is not science, and it attempts to corrupt valid scientific theories.

This thread is a failure.

crackerboy said:

Look those videos are not the only resource that I have. Those where just the most convenient for me to post as examples that there is an alternative opinion in the scientific community to evolution.

So because those video's covered so much information I would like to start with the theory of chemical evolution. The theory that all life formed from basic minerals in the ocean.
Scientist have attempted to demonstrate how life could have arisen from nonliving material. Some of these scientists have had some success in producing simple biomonomers in a laboratory, this is a far cry from real world circumstances since they exclude many other damaging elements. Problems of concentration of minerals, stability of the environment, as well as specific mirror image make the possibility of chemical evolution unlikely.
A scientist named Harold Morrowitz did a calculation of the probability of spontaneous organization of organic molecules to form a very simple microbe such as Escherichia coli is only 1 followed by 100,000 million zero's. Needless to say that statistically it is an improbability that such evolution could occur in this primordial soup. This problem further compounds when you consider the requirement for hundreds and in some cases thousands of chemical changes working together simultaneously in a simple cell.

Click to expand...

Good question but unfortunately isn't actually part of the theory of evolution which only is an explanation of how life evolved, not how life started. Newton didn't need to know how the planets where formed to explain their motion. Chemists don't have to explain how the elements were formed to explain how they interact. Likewise, biologists don't have to know how life got here to explain how it diversified and not knowing doesn't damage evolutionary theory in the least.

Now with that out of the way, I'll try to address abiogenesis. First of all, I think it would only be fair that you cite your source because those are not your words. Biomonomers? Specific mirror image? Are you referring to stereo isomers?

Let's understand that a bacteria like E. coli is a very modern, well evolved organism, the cyanobacteria and Archaea would have been better choices as they are simpler but even they are more modern and complex than we suspect the first replicating organisms were. There probably is no modern equivalent as any protocell would have severe disadvantages to anything that evolved a cell wall and would be extinct. Add to that the problem that such replicators wouldn't have anything to fossilize and we will have difficulty showing exactly how life that formed us began. Let us also remember that failure in the laboratory is in no means evidence against abiogenesis because.
1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
2. All we need is one replicator to form in just a few million years in a laboratory the size of Earth's oceans.

It is easy to forget that in cosmologic and geologic time periods, even extremely unlikely events can happen on occasion, sometimes more than once. So let's throw out this canard of the bullshit statistics of 10 to the trillionth power or whatever. No one is claiming a fully functioning organism with a cell wall and complex internal structure formed spontaneously. Even then, I'd have to question his math because a 1 followed by 100 zeroes is already a number greater than the number of atoms in the entire universe.

Okay, back to the beginning of life. I keep saying replicator because the most likely explanation is that what became the basis for life probably looked and acted like nothing we would normally call life. Crystals reproduce in a way. They replicate their structure and take 'nourishment' from it's environment. The first "life" was probably a sequence of chemicals that used some sort of catalyst like a crystal, as scaffolding to help form replicas of itself. Even at that time, there could have been many combinations of chemicals that could replicate to some extent as millions of such experiments were probably occurring on the early Earth powered by geothermal energy or the sun. The evolution of DNA and cellular structure took a great deal of time, they did not just pop into existence. It appears that this had a chance to happen even much earlier than we thought as Mars had oceans of liquid water when Earth was still a molten rock after being hit by the protoplanet that formed our moon. The fact that we find rocks from Mars have hit Earth as meteorites makes the idea of panspermia credible. All of this of course is still very speculative and we may never have a complete answer but that doesn't make it more likely that life popped into existence spontaneously because some super-being spoke a few words.

One last fact about chirality. It is true that proteins are made up of L amino acids and we don't know a process that produces only L form and not D forms, but we have found extraterrestrial sources of amino acids in asteroids and they too seem to favor the L form. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104064412.htm This again demonstrates that just because we haven't been able to provide an explanation for something doesn't make it unexplainable.

Tym said:

Dude, there is no evidence here. Just a shit load of bald assertions, bad science and logical fallacies..
In your own words, without posting links to hour long I.D propaganda videos, tell me what evidence there is.

Posting links to videos that have all been thoroughly debunked many times by people far more reputable than those who made them, videos that have ZERO evidence or logic, Is not evidence of anything other than your own ignorance.

Do you know why ID was thrown out of court? Do you know why none of the claims made by any ID proponent have ever made it in to a peer reviewed journal?
Because they have no evidence, it is not science, and it attempts to corrupt valid scientific theories.

This thread is a failure.

Click to expand...

Let's give him a chance. He proposed some reasons as to why he feels life and evolution is unlikely to be a fully natural process. Evolution is not an easy subject to grasp. It is not intuitive and can be quite complex with a few areas we still don't understand. Given that not everyone is trained in science and for some the most exposure they ever had was H.S. biology where often the explanations of how we know what we know is brushed over and lost amongst the need to learn the material on the next test. It is reasonable to try to answer his objections in a calm, clear and professional manner as long as he (and anyone else) is willing to listen.

this thread has way too much friction. i think i will watch the videos but every body just chill, i think God allows evolution. i also think that people talk what they do not believe. How could we even understand what is really how and when. we know how old the universe is, how old our planet is, that dinosaurs were here in the U.S. I still believe in a higher power even with that.