'Lifless' Virus

[Inv3rted]

Edit: It sounds like these prions are just going through rapid microevolution (adaptation, which, from a Creationist view, is a built-in-feature). Bacteria and viruses can do the same thing to gain immunities to antibiotics and to survive in radical climates. However, what I see missing is the claim that these proteins can change into other species, or even if they are a species themselves, seeing as they aren't classified as "living".

The distinction between macro and microevolution was created by creationists because evolution's evidence became irrefutable.

[Ad Bot]

[Zenthrox]

The distinction between macro and microevolution was created by creationists because evolution's evidence became irrefutable.

No, microevolution exists. It's also known under another term as "adaptation". Organisms were designed to be able to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive. Macroevolution, however, takes it one step further and says that, if given enough time, an organism can go through microevolution so many times that it can become a whole new organism, which I doubt. I don't know if it could happen, I haven't lived for the millions of years some scientists claim the earth to be, but it's very unlikely.

[dkamm65]

which I doubt.

So what are you basing those doubts on?
There's more evidence for evolution than there is against it.

[Zenthrox]

So what are you basing those doubts on?

The possibility of it happening. It seems slim to the point of almost nothing.

First, you need a species to adapt to a situation. Then you need that adapted species to reproduce, if it doesn't get killed first. Once it does reproduce, it's offspring has a chance to inherit its parent's adaptation. Normally, the adaptation was minor to begin with, so the species would need to more than likely reproduce hundreds of thousands of times in order to even make a change to its species' organic structure.

Even assuming nothing goes wrong, the species would need millions of years to even have the chance to go through the necessary microevolutions before it becomes a new species and goes through macroevolution.

It could happen, but, again, I don't think so.

[Wizard]

No, microevolution exists. It's also known under another term as "adaptation". Organisms were designed to be able to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive. Macroevolution, however, takes it one step further and says that, if given enough time, an organism can go through microevolution so many times that it can become a whole new organism, which I doubt. I don't know if it could happen, I haven't lived for the millions of years some scientists claim the earth to be, but it's very unlikely.

First of all, I don't even know why I'm taking the time to reply to someone as purely idiotic as you are. Microevolution is EXACTLY the same as microevolution, except it takes place over a greater span of time. If an organism can "microevolve" once, it can do it again. There would need to be some sort of force prohibiting more than one evolution, which would be a fine theory if there were any evidence whatsoever for it. I'd like to add that the concept of microevolution is a concept that we've created. Each time an organism mutates slightly, does that count as microevolution? When has a species completed just one microevolution to stop evolving? Your whole POINT is built on your ignorance of the theory of evolution! I'd like to add that you're prohibiting new species from emerging when a species is really a human distinction. We categorize new "species" based on rules that we've created. It certainly is not unlikely, since the theory of evolution directly follows from the FACT of genetic mutation. "Some scientists" do not claim the earth is millions of years old, EVERY. SINGLE. SCIENTIST. who wishes to maintain ANY of their dignity recognizes that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Any scientist who claims otherwise would be ridiculed because the evidence of earth's age is so overwhelming it doesn't make since that even an idiot like you wouldn't get it.

The possibility of it happening. It seems slim to the point of almost nothing.

First, you need a species to adapt to a situation. Then you need that adapted species to reproduce, if it doesn't get killed first. Once it does reproduce, it's offspring has a chance to inherit its parent's adaptation. Normally, the adaptation was minor to begin with, so the species would need to more than likely reproduce hundreds of thousands of times in order to even make a change to its species' organic structure.

Even assuming nothing goes wrong, the species would need millions of years to even have the chance to go through the necessary microevolutions before it becomes a new species and goes through macroevolution.

It could happen, but, again, I don't think so.

It's fact that all of this happens. Even you admit that species adapt. All animals by definition reproduce, and it not getting killed is part of evolution. When it does there's a 50% chance that it's offspring will have it's adaptation. Species DO reproduce hundreds of thousands of times. Species DO have millions of years and I've asserted that new species are a human contruct. The evidence that it "could" happen is so overwhelming that we think it happened to every living creature ever.

[dkamm65]

lol Wizard is my new favorite person.

[Wizard]

lol Wizard is my new favorite person.

I'd also like to add that zenthrox has the evolutionary understanding of a disabled snail.

[Zenthrox]

First of all, I don't even know why I'm taking the time to reply to someone as purely idiotic as you are. Microevolution is EXACTLY the same as microevolution, except it takes place over a greater span of time. If an organism can "microevolve" once, it can do it again. There would need to be some sort of force prohibiting more than one evolution, which would be a fine theory if there were any evidence whatsoever for it. I'd like to add that the concept of microevolution is a concept that we've created. Each time an organism mutates slightly, does that count as microevolution? When has a species completed just one microevolution to stop evolving? Your whole POINT is built on your ignorance of the theory of evolution! I'd like to add that you're prohibiting new species from emerging when a species is really a human distinction. We categorize new "species" based on rules that we've created. It certainly is not unlikely, since the theory of evolution directly follows from the FACT of genetic mutation. "Some scientists" do not claim the earth is millions of years old, EVERY. SINGLE. SCIENTIST. who wishes to maintain ANY of their dignity recognizes that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Any scientist who claims otherwise would be ridiculed because the evidence of earth's age is so overwhelming it doesn't make since that even an idiot like you wouldn't get it.

First off, I never said macroevolution was impossible. I can't claim to know that. However, I do know it's very improbable, and that's what makes me doubt it. Secondly, you say scientists categorize new "species" based on rules of their own creation, meaning they can contort the rules into whatever they want until the given data can support their hypothesis. Third, our methods of dating the earth are inaccurate, contradictory to what evolutionist scientist would like to say. Fourth, genetic mutation often results in negative results for the organism. (For Wizard, that means genetic mutation usually makes life worse for the offspring. "Negative" means "bad").

It's fact that all of this happens. Even you admit that species adapt. All animals by definition reproduce, and it not getting killed is part of evolution. When it does there's a 50% chance that it's offspring will have it's adaptation. Species DO reproduce hundreds of thousands of times. Species DO have millions of years and I've asserted that new species are a human contruct. The evidence that it "could" happen is so overwhelming that we think it happened to every living creature ever.

The same adapted species member would need to reproduce, and then its offspring would need to reproduce, and so on and so on. The collective population of a species can reproduce, but you would need the right parents to produce the right offspring and it would need to continue for many, many generations. And as much as you'd like to debate it, organisms die. It happens. It can't be ignored when estimating the probability of it occuring.

I'd also like to add that zenthrox has the evolutionary understanding of a disabled snail.

Don't worry, I'll evolve new legs in a few million years.

[Wizard]

First off, I never said macroevolution was impossible. I can't claim to know that. However, I do know it's very improbable, and that's what makes me doubt it. Secondly, you say scientists categorize new "species" based on rules of their own creation, meaning they can contort the rules into whatever they want until the given data can support their hypothesis. Third, our methods of dating the earth are inaccurate, contradictory to what evolutionist scientist would like to say. Fourth, genetic mutation often results in negative results for the organism. (For Wizard, that means genetic mutation usually makes life worse for the offspring. "Negative" means "bad").
The same adapted species member would need to reproduce, and then its offspring would need to reproduce, and so on and so on. The collective population of a species can reproduce, but you would need the right parents to produce the right offspring and it would need to continue for many, many generations. And as much as you'd like to debate it, organisms die. It happens. It can't be ignored when estimating the probability of it occuring.
Don't worry, I'll evolve new legs in a few million years.

First of all, you don't know macroevolution is improbable, because it isn't. The fact is that any organism that reproduces is going to pass down its genes means that evolution of some sort is bound to happen. It isn't improbably that a genetically superior organism is going to be more successful. I'm not sure what you mean about the species categorization thing. My point was that you can't say no new species can come into existence because species is our creation. Scientists don't come up with a hypothesis then find evidence. They make a hypothesis BASED on the evidence and then open it to peer-examination using OTHER evidence. You're just wrong about the inaccurate methods of dating, saying it's wrong is calling some pretty fundamental scientific theories, like radioactivity, wrong. You're going to tell me that c14 only lasts for X years and stays accurate, and you're right. However there are OTHER substances in organisms that deteriorate at a steady rate which are used for older dates. Genetic mutation does often create problems, but it also has positive effects (positive means good for zenthrox). It's a commonly held incorrect view that genetic mutation is always bad, it simply isn't true. We just notice the bad. And you're right, the adapted species member does need to reproduce, but depending on the organism in the space of 10 years we might have 10 or 20 separate babies. About half will have the gene (10), and they're all going to double as soon as they're fertile. It's exponential growth, so if one is killed it really doesn't matter. The whole getting killed thing is even needed in natural selection, since weaker organisms will die faster and more easily. I DON'T want to debate that organisms die, since it actually supports my theory and not yours! (Why would god create imperfect beings, I know your explanation is original sin and I'll explain how that doesn't work if you want to get into it). In fact, death increases the probability of a positive mutation becoming more common.


Hopefully when you get legs you'll get a little smarter too.

[Sebster 105]

My mom is a zombie. Just sitting there... lifless... or something
Bull crap

[Wizard]

I think I scared the creationist off.

[Plasmus]

THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WILL SURVIVE THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE IS PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET.

[Inv3rted]

Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. Natural selection is the most likely operator behind the fact that organisms evolve.

This is the common misunderstanding that every creationist has. Once they understand that evolution is a fact, they can no longer say they "support true science."

[Moybus]

I'm a bit confused as to why Zenthrox accepts adaption yet denies evolution.

The possibility of it happening. It seems slim to the point of almost nothing.

First, you need a species to adapt to a situation. Then you need that adapted species to reproduce, if it doesn't get killed first. Once it does reproduce, it's offspring has a chance to inherit its parent's adaptation. Normally, the adaptation was minor to begin with, so the species would need to more than likely reproduce hundreds of thousands of times in order to even make a change to its species' organic structure.

Even assuming nothing goes wrong, the species would need millions of years to even have the chance to go through the necessary microevolutions before it becomes a new species and goes through macroevolution.

It could happen, but, again, I don't think so.

Well, you see, if it adapts it is far less likely to die before reproducing. This is because the purpose of adaption is to lower the likelihood of dying before reproducing; hurp. It's not a CHANCE the off spring will inherit the adaption, the off spring WILL inherit it. This is stuff doesn't happen over night, evolution takes a long time. You can't say "Evolution isn't real because it would take thousands of years" because it DOES take thousands of years.

I'd also like to know what facts you have backing this "It's probably impossible". Once again, if something can adapt it can evolve.

[Vulgus]

al'ight.... I'm pullin out my dad's model katanas and pray I dont slice myself in half.