- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Incredible Content
-
Do you follow the science when it comes to Evolutionary Theory?
@just_sayin
Evolution has to explain how life arises from non-live.
No it doesn't.
How life arises from the simplest forms to higher forms is what evolution means. You don't want to take an honest look at the science because it conflicts with your faith claims about evolution.
Empirical evidence strongly supports the fact divergence through decent took place. You don't want to take an honest look at the science because it conflicts with your religious blind faith claims of an imaginary creature.
Chemical evolution is an essential part of evolution - its in the genes where it is alleged that new genetic information arises. However, if you are aware of the science of this, then you are aware of the problems for introducing new genetic information.
We don't understand everything that much is true. Here's what we know: We exist so the circumstances needed for genetic information to emerge did occur. It is like a puzzle that is partially together but still missing most of the pieces. And none suggest an undetectable imaginary agent called Santa or any other name.
Its not that there are not lots of theories about how new information arises in genes, its that actual observation is rare and there are serious issues with the various methods. For example with gene duplication, the gene is believed to be copied into a new location within the genome. Gene conservation, which should maintain both copies of the duplicated gene, is thought to be rare due to the lack of evidence for it and the rapid gene loss that typically follows polyploidization events. Also, neofunctionalization, the process by which a duplicated gene might acquire new functions, is controversial and not widely seen in nature.
Yup science is a continuous work in process. So far any new discoveries or information that is uncovered all points to natural phenomenon. No 'god' dna or anything even remotely imagined could be 'god' dna ever presents itself. No observations, no contact, nothing. And that's the 'nothing' you believe everything came from.
There are problems with de novo origination, exon/domain shuffling, and even epigenetic changes are just transient and don't really change the DNA strand.
Problems always arise in science because they look for answers, not a mind soothing assertion that god did it.
Once again I observe that it is those who have put their faith in evolution who seem to be running from the scientific issues and problems with the theory.
If that self assuring statement makes you feel smug and works for you then good for you. However it doesn't have much value in the real world.
-
Do you follow the science when it comes to Evolutionary Theory?
Heard that sermon before. You know this is a debate site, right? I provided evidence behind the theory of divergence through decent. A component of evolutionary theory. Your response is to inject a supernatural agency for wit there is not one scintilla of evidence for support and ramble on about the things not known? Did you read my intro where I provided an explanation on how differently the word 'theory' is used between laymen and scholars? And how cross sections of the different disciplines of science overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution?just_sayin said:I suppose God could have used evolution to create all the creatures on the planet. However, I'm just not sure I have that much faith. In the debate on abiogenesis I mentioned some questions that the faithful believers in evolution don't have workable answers to:
Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it?
Nope.
Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?
No. Scientists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life. We now know that was inaccurate. The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers. As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”
Sometimes there are appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile. Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life. The science suggests that is not the case.
Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?
Nope. The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts. The reason Miller found what he did was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created in a natural environment. That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also. So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing. When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing. Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells. 20 different amino acids minimum are needed for even simple DNA or RNA.
Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?
No. The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.” Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.
Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?
No. A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses. If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA). No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another. While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.
Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?
No. A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate. In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."
Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue. 1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help. And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.
Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe. (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)
Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.
As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."
Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.
Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?
Nope. DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for. This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.
"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,”
"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller
There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet to the faithful atheist 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science." Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.
I'm sure my atheist friends will spend their energies in personal attacks against anyone who dares asks them to take a look at the science. What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life. -
Gay at birth?
This is a good question. Technically speaking, everything is biologically influenced to some extent. We interact with our environment, our organism reacts to that interaction in the way determined by biology, and the biology shifts as a consequence. For this process to be launched in the first place, some biological imprint has to be there.ZeusAres42 said:@MayCaesar
One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction? I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification.
I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.
However, the question arises: are people with two different biological imprints, yet subjected to the same environmental factors, going to develop their sexuality independently? How strong is the overlap? It is possible that it is 0%, but it is also possible that it is 100%. Our biological imprints may differ significantly, yet the differences might be quite irrelevant when it comes to development of this particular trait. This possibility is what I was suggesting.
-
Gay at birth?
@just_sayin
Wow! You're whining about my piece not being more up to date yet you constantly quote from a 2000 year old book and call its ramblings ....Fact ......hilarious.
The most up to date findings support the fact that secual orientation is not a choice I know this fact goes in the face of your religious beliefs but that's tough facts do not care about your religious dictates.
Your unfounded contention remains that sexual orientation is a choice and your " best evidence" has been a minority study demonstrating 39 per cent of non binrary depressed children in a small poll were confused about sexual orientation...dear or dear.
So do explain why 90 per cent of the world's population stay the same sexual orientation they were born with?
Is it because they fear gods wrath?
You believe it is don't you ? -
Gay at birth?
LOL a therapist you're not. Can you address what is being said? Science on this issue is inconclusive when it comes to natural attractions and sexual preferences. Just because a small minority of people change their orientation undoubtably after an "immense and prolonged effort" as you suggest, by no means indicates the issue is settled. I don't believe in your god anymore, has nothing to do with anger or this topic. But you do and your god holds homosexuals accountable for acting on their homosexuality so my question isn't one of morality. That's stated in your scriptures. My question is why are you banking on science that isn't conclusive and only accounts for such a small fraction of people? Is it just an effort to say could have a choice during a 'fluid' time?just_sayin said:
I have not made a moral argument for or against homosexuality in this debate. Maybe your anger towards God has clouded your ability to not lash out at people of faith unreasonably. The issue of morality is a different issue than are people born gay and is sexual orientation immutable. I see this debate as an issue of what the research says. This is about what is (the research), not what ought to be (moral determinations). On a off topic side note, until you address your anger towards God, you won't get over your depression. If you are in therapy, I'm sure they have told you this by now.Factfinder said:
No I meant what I said. In the end you think sexual orientation is a choice. Homosexuality bad so all one has to do is "change their patterns and thoughts" and resist their natural attractions long enough to 'establish new patterns'? Sorry but a succession of choices one has to make to change what they're attracted to is still choices. Not only are they choices but they're designed to ultimately reflect a final choice to change ones attractions. So just admit you think one can change their sexual orientation if they approach it like quitting drinking. Which is boloney.just_sayin said:
Yes, people have agency and can choose who they sleep with, no matter what sexual orientation they are. So if that it what you mean by 'choice' the answer is yes - people can choose their actions..Factfinder said:@just_sayin
So, about 1 out of every 5 gay men have had sex with a woman in the past year alone. Which goes to show you that sexual-orientation is not set in stone and is not immutable
The only reason to make that statement is to lead to a conclusion of choice in the end. You're claiming 1 out of every 5 gay men make the choice to sleep with women as well. So logic would dictate the others can as well? Is that your point? Cause no matter what 'choice' people make about who they have sex with, their sexual orientation doesn't change. Heterosexuals sleep with people they're not attracted to for various reasons. I imagine homosexuals would too; don't you think? If they're attracted to the opposite sex then that's the case, if they're attracted to the same sex then that's the case, they still have no choice in THAT matter.
Can people change their patterns and thoughts? Just as with people losing weight, quitting drugs, alcohol or gambling, yes, they can, but often not without immense and prolonged effort. Even then, they may have attractions and thoughts because of how those patterns have been established in their brain. As AA teaches, you never stop being an alcoholic. That doesn't mean that the person can't live a life where they no longer drink and that after establishing new patterns it isn't a little easier to live without drinking.
Because of the political aspects of the issue, people want to deny the scientific research and make claims that sexual orientation does not change, when the evidence is, it can and does for some people. For 60 plus years people claimed that people are born gay. we now know that there is no gay gene. The alleged gay genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that more heterosexuals than homosexuals have so called gay genetic markers, We know that a noticeable percentage of people change sexual orientation during their lifetime. We also know that about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of all people who identify as gay, have no gay genetic markers at all, while some heterosexuals have the so-called gay genetic markers. That's what the science says.
What about people who are married with children who come out and get divorced? The number one reason given I'd say is they couldn't live any longer being dishonest with themselves. They supposed to do the 12 steps?
Anyway, the people arguing that sexual orientation is fluid are not doing so on the basis of being religious. In fact, the opposite is much more likely the case. The researchers are very pro LGBTQ+/ The most prolific and leading researcher on the topic is herself a Lesbian.. I've cited their work multiple times now, but you haven't provided a single source that says that sexual orientation is not fluid. Either put up or .
I have not argued that change is easy, I have only pointed you to the research that says it happens. And for the record, no, I do not think I can change anyone. I think no one changes who doesn't first want to. I think if someone wants to change, that change is possible though. The research support this.
People can't help their personal attractions they become aware of as they grow and mature. 90% of people develop desires for the opposite sex, 10% develop similar desires for the same sex or both. Not in any stage where the natural development of sexual attraction is concerned is the person making a choice before those desires comes into full fruition. I just liked girls, period. I didn't choose that but I'm happy with it. Can you explain what exactly is your take when these researchers of yours talk of 'fluidity'? Can you change your sexual orientation? -
Gay at birth?
No I meant what I said. In the end you think sexual orientation is a choice. Homosexuality bad so all one has to do is "change their patterns and thoughts" and resist their natural attractions long enough to 'establish new patterns'? Sorry but a succession of choices one has to make to change what they're attracted to is still choices. Not only are they choices but they're designed to ultimately reflect a final choice to change ones attractions. So just admit you think one can change their sexual orientation if they approach it like quitting drinking. Which is boloney.just_sayin said:
Yes, people have agency and can choose who they sleep with, no matter what sexual orientation they are. So if that it what you mean by 'choice' the answer is yes - people can choose their actions..Factfinder said:@just_sayin
So, about 1 out of every 5 gay men have had sex with a woman in the past year alone. Which goes to show you that sexual-orientation is not set in stone and is not immutable
The only reason to make that statement is to lead to a conclusion of choice in the end. You're claiming 1 out of every 5 gay men make the choice to sleep with women as well. So logic would dictate the others can as well? Is that your point? Cause no matter what 'choice' people make about who they have sex with, their sexual orientation doesn't change. Heterosexuals sleep with people they're not attracted to for various reasons. I imagine homosexuals would too; don't you think? If they're attracted to the opposite sex then that's the case, if they're attracted to the same sex then that's the case, they still have no choice in THAT matter.
Can people change their patterns and thoughts? Just as with people losing weight, quitting drugs, alcohol or gambling, yes, they can, but often not without immense and prolonged effort. Even then, they may have attractions and thoughts because of how those patterns have been established in their brain. As AA teaches, you never stop being an alcoholic. That doesn't mean that the person can't live a life where they no longer drink and that after establishing new patterns it isn't a little easier to live without drinking.
Because of the political aspects of the issue, people want to deny the scientific research and make claims that sexual orientation does not change, when the evidence is, it can and does for some people. For 60 plus years people claimed that people are born gay. we now know that there is no gay gene. The alleged gay genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that more heterosexuals than homosexuals have so called gay genetic markers, We know that a noticeable percentage of people change sexual orientation during their lifetime. We also know that about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of all people who identify as gay, have no gay genetic markers at all, while some heterosexuals have the so-called gay genetic markers. That's what the science says.
What about people who are married with children who come out and get divorced? The number one reason given I'd say is they couldn't live any longer being dishonest with themselves. They supposed to do the 12 steps?
-
I hate Trump, but it's Biden who's committing genocide on the Palestinians.
How so?Bogan said:And you proved mine. You know quite well that I am right, which is why you never stop prevaricating, obfuscating, misdirecting, and muddying the water. The question that I really would love to ask you, although it is pointless because you never answer any question that I ask you, is why? Why do you persist in espousing what you know quite well is a lie?
What exactly is your claim?
I do not espouse what I know to be a lie. I have read the opinions on this thread, in particular between you and a couple other members and contributed elements of truth now and again. Point being there are many facets that this debate evolved around and I haven't picked a side in anyway. The fact is you have posited some truths but your interpretations of some of those truths I've disagreed with. Don't you understand one can be partially right while at the same time another can be partially right as well?
Anyway I do not muddy the waters, reality can do that all on its own. For instance it's true as you say, we all have some prejudices, but at the same time it's true most in western society try and avoid living by them because they easily lead to false judgments, blanket statements, and wrong conclusions. Obviously no one single statement can be absolutely true about all members of any particular ethnicity. Or is that your claim you accuse me and others of avoiding? -
How can we tell if news is true or fake?
I do not really care about politics, so I cannot give you guys my input on this. I follow the scientific/technological news and financial news, and with those it is fairly straightforward.
With scientific/technological news, I expect the author to cite the source and quote from that source accurately, and there are some authors who have a solid track of doing that, so there is very little reason for me to suspect them of making stuff up. They can make an honest mistake every now and then, but they will not come up with a paper that does not exist.
With financial news, it is even simpler: when some company's stock plummets, I can see it in real life. When some CEO is quoted, I can find the press release on the company's website.
I would imagine that you can do the same in politics: make sure that whatever you are reading links to actual sources and quotes them accurately, and lets the data speak for itself, rather than telling you what to think about it. Find a few individuals/organizations that have a good track of doing that and you will be golden. Just keep verifying regularly that they are still doing that: media organizations have a poor track record of staying fair once becoming popular. -
Reasons for your siding regarding the Israely and Palestine/Hamas Conflict?
@Bogan
You are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
I am neither. You are neither. We are just discussing it on the internet. Though I see no reason to continue.
If you insist on breaking down what someone says sentence by sentence as if they're stand alone remarks thereby warping their meanings instead of considering the intended context of said sentences, you will never understand what people are saying.
There comes a time when one must move past assigning blame and seek solutions. I have always maintained Israel's right to defend itself. Just because I also think it's not a good thing to bomb civilian hospitals is in no way changing my stance and you've failed to show that it has. Everyone has their opinions on who's fault it is and I've shown ample outrage towards Hamas and the like for being the aggressors. I realize others believe differently; but if we're to find any solutions we need to move past the blame game. Bombing people into oblivion as an answer was something we as civilized people at one time wanted to move past. That's as simple as I can make it. And before you respond let me just add, no that isn't a weak approach. It would call for doing what you think is impossible. Eliminating the criminal element so the focus can be on the real problems and issues. -
Are Homophobes Perverted?
This seems like a common misapplication of statistics people make: not accounting for updates on a prior with new information. For example, when someone says that a Black person is much more likely to commit a violent crime than an Asian person, they are making a very general population-wide statement. However, as soon as you know even a little bit about the particular Black person and the particular Asian person, the proportion of probabilities changes drastically. For instance, if you know that both are classmates in the law school of Harvard, then the probability of either committing a violent crime is going to be less than among any large racial group on average, and the comparison between the two will not be unfavorable to the Black person.
Similarly, it is true that statistically homosexual people have inferior health outcomes to heterosexual people, outcomes that are not fully explained by their inferior status in the society (which is not even the case any more: in fact, one could argue that homosexual people have more opportunities than heterosexual people when it comes to fellowships and certain job positions targeting sexual minorities). It is hard to see, however, what being homosexual itself can possibly have to do with it, just like in the example above it is hard to see what being Black has to do with one's propensity to committing violent crime. The homosexual person may be a part of the "LGBT community" (whatever the heck it is) and influenced by some poor ideologies promoting reckless hedonism, and then, yes, their expected outcomes will poor. On the other hand, I have a couple of homosexual/bisexual friends who have graduated from elite universities with STEM degrees and are proactive enough to research dangers of unprotected sex and such and do something about it - and their outcomes are not expected (to the best of my knowledge) to be worse than those for heterosexual people of the same socio-economical standing.
I am not sure what use there is in comparing general population outcomes when the question stands as follows: "Should homosexual people be encouraged to deny their sexuality or not?" It would be interesting, to that end, to also compare the health outcomes of homosexual people engaging in homosexual relationships (including sex), and those who deny themselves the pleasure. The latter is quite unlikely to be healthy.
At the same time, it is silly to deny the obvious health risks. Saying that, all other things being equal, homosexual sex is as healthy as heterosexual sex is plainly wrong no matter how much you dislike the fact that it is wrong. Reality is what it is: you are not supposed to like or dislike it, only to accept it. Life is not fair, people are born or evolve to have traits and conditions that make their lives more difficult than if the did not have them. It is more productive to talk about adaptation to those traits and mitigation of risks, than to deny the risks and hope that political correctness will keep them at bay.
