Thread: Evolution is a Joke IX

Originally Posted by Durandal

I think it's easiest to place the virus and any other such thing in its own category; it's neither life nor nonlife, being something of a subset of the most basic form of life we do recognise: the cell.

The sometimes definition of life as being an organism which has the ability to reproduce itself seems harsh

It's not easy to define something that's defined as neither Life nor non-Life because, something that neither Life nor non-Life might very well be an impossibility, all depending, of course, on how one defines LIFE.

Even a single human cannot reproduce itself. The sperm requires an ovum from an other - or, vice-versa..

Viruses can multiply

A virus can die of be "killed" .. cease being a virus.. forced to cease being a virus.

A single-celled animal such as a bacterium is certainly a very basic living organism.

A human is arguably the most unbasic living organism and more to the point every part of the human such as finger or brain make up the whole.

Barring dead cells, all cells and structures of a human which are not dead are by definition alive

An organelle is a subset of a cell; e.g., the nucleus. Based upon the functional behavior of a nucleus, it seems impossible to think of them as non-LIFE.

Semantics of life/non-life aside, the still unanswered question of how a virus replete with genetic information came to be, is of greater interest than various nomenclatura arbitrarily assigned to it

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

If you can go to the hospital to all the pregnant women and tell them what color the childs hair will be and eye color, how tall, and blood type before the child is born because gene dominance is predictable, then I would believe you. But, if you cannot - then it is not predictable and that is "random"....

You keep mistaking individuals for an entire species. And simply because something isn't predictable doesn't mean it isn't random. I'm thinking of a number. It's the number of siblings I have. It's not random. Can you predict it?

Of course if you did a little bit of poking around you could probably find out I have one brother. Similarly, if you had access to to each child's DNA you would be able to tell what their eye color would be.

Originally Posted by Durandal

This is one possible way for the prey to avoid detection, but obviously its own coloration and habits matter just as well. The thing with natural selection and evolution is that it acts statistically, tending to favor one trait over another, such that over many generations you get evolution guided by that selection pressure.

Which is statistically impossible within a chaotic ecosystem. If everything is being “naturally selected” at different rates since it measured in generations, how can it be guided?

Originally Posted by Durandal

Of course it works. Mama's offspring will inherit her genes, whether they happen to be dominant or not, they will be carriers of it, and their own offspring will be affected likewise. Again, it's statistical over a long period of time and many generations. All you're doing is pointing out that no particular feature will suddenly appear and dominate within a generation or two - it takes a lot longer than that.

Do you know how hard it is to "breed" a trait out of a species? I mean - if we humans intervened... by just sexual selection alone? Now, you are suggesting that in nature when a random mutation happens that it will be spread across the planet of life through a process called Natural Selection…? Let me explain how ridiculous I find this – The Darwinist say that birds lose their wings because natural selection saw they didn’t need them anymore and they lost them. There are several examples of what they say “they think” happened. Now… We have technology… Thus, in about 100 or so generations we’ll all be albino midgets…

Originally Posted by cooky

"Viruses are not life but they are a part of life." This is how viruses were explained to me by a prominent virologist that I worked for some time ago. The evolutionary study of viruses has become quite a haute topic in evolutionary biology.

Not one piece of empirical evidence that contradict the TOE has been offered in any of the "Evolution is a joke" threads. Until the original poster can offer one bit of empirical evidence that contradicts the modern synthesis of the TOE I will consider these threads to be a joke.

It hasn't passed the Scientific Method and thus is not a theory... It's a hypothesis unless you can provide how it made it passed the scientific method. Would love to hear it

Originally Posted by The Wyrd of Gawd

Isn't it amazing that various animals are able to select specific colors and patterns that give themselves an edge. If you raised mice in a red-colored environment how many generations would it take them to develop red hair to blend into their surroundings?

The universe would end before that happened... So, the answer would be never...

Originally Posted by Durandal

I think it's easiest to place the virus and any other such thing in its own category; it's neither life nor nonlife, being something of a subset of the most basic form of life we do recognise: the cell.

Agreed... I feel viruses are "inbetween"....

Originally Posted by fishmatter

You keep mistaking individuals for an entire species. And simply because something isn't predictable doesn't mean it isn't random. I'm thinking of a number. It's the number of siblings I have. It's not random. Can you predict it? Of course if you did a little bit of poking around you could probably find out I have one brother.

Then can you explain on individual – to group (like a herd) – to range (like North America) – to world. Because that is what is suggested… Also, your example doesn’t fit since you do know how many siblings you have.

Similarly, if you had access to each child's DNA you would be able to tell what their eye color would be.

That is incorrect because we know what the parents have even before the DNA gets all mixed up. So you can look at each parent and say which eye color will be dominant?

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

Then can you explain on individual – to group (like a herd) – to range (like North America) – to world. Because that is what is suggested… Also, your example doesn’t fit since you do know how many siblings you have.



That is incorrect because we know what the parents have even before the DNA gets all mixed up. So you can look at each parent and say which eye color will be dominant?

Given a proper family history, you can make some pretty good guesses. Also, given a large enough number of children, you can be almost certain about the distribution of traits. Game of Thrones actually has an example of this.

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

It hasn't passed the Scientific Method and thus is not a theory... It's a hypothesis unless you can provide how it made it passed the scientific method. Would love to hear it

The National Academy of Sciences unequivocally disagrees with you yet you are arrogant enough to think that you are right and the NAS is wrong. Surely you jest....