Dual Factor hypertrophy training?

[Heavy Duty dude]

Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ June 18 2005,5:47)]

Quote[/b] ]Seriously, how many bodybuilding boards double as creationist propaganda mills for anti-evolutionist rhetoric?  You couldn't write fiction better than that.

Ouch dude, that's pretty insulting to me. I happen to be a creationist  

I can't believe it.. man man man..

How can you possibly believe that??

 

[NWlifter]

Quote[/b] ]Well, I'd just suggest being honest about it - it's faith first, science second. And the latter, imho, is a rationalization - you are, in effect, suggesting that most of the world's biologists hold a "preposterous" theory, despite 150 years of peer reviewed evidence on the subject and a convergence of acceptance across all major religious belief systems (from atheistic to theistic - most of those who accept evolution in the western world are Christian, for example).

First, I was honest, I listed faith first, then how I find the science skewed and also I might add, fabricated.

And yes, if indeed that many do choose evolution over God, then I think their stuck in a preposterous belief

Forgetting the religious point of it, and just focusing on the evolution part. Scientifically it doesn't wash either in my opinion. There are no peer reviewed cases of evolution, no one has seen evolution. I think natural selection gets confused for evolution far too many times.

Every time we see some kind of genetic abnormality, it always, in every case, makes the species weaker.

Quote[/b] ]I don't mind that people disagree with evolution if they are up front as to WHY they do. Imho, I've yet to see somebody who really understood the subject disagree for scientific reasons.

One thing to remember, everyone has their opinions and their reasons, and it's not up to any of us to even expect people to justify their belief system unless they are the ones calling you out.

Quote[/b] ]
I hope you don't take any of this as an insult. I enjoy the subject, and I hate to see people turned off from it, most particularly those in the creationist movement. It's a fascinating subject to explore and, imho, a little disrespectful to those in the field to dismiss it as being insufficient without a tremendous background in that subject (kind of like how bodybuilders would dismiss most of the discussions on this board due to anecdote and scientific prejducie).

I'm terribly sorry creationists don't seem to have good reason to you. It's one of those things, we all have our own beliefs and unless were seeking someones advice in changing them, all the talk in the world only seems to agrivate each respective side.

Like I said on the previous page, and I was honest, I reject it for both reasons, faith AND how it's so scientifically 'bogus'

Ron

 

[mikeynov]

Quote[/b] ]Forgetting the religious point of it, and just focusing on the evolution part. Scientifically it doesn't wash either in my opinion. There are no peer reviewed cases of evolution, no one has seen evolution.

Quote[/b] ]Forgetting the religious point of it, and just focusing on the evolution part. Scientifically it doesn't wash either in my opinion. There are no peer reviewed cases of evolution, no one has seen evolution.

There are literally thousands of peer reviewed cases of evolution. A search on pubmed yields approximately > 150,000 peer reviewed abstracts pertaining to the subject.

First, let's make sure we understand what evolution is:
Biological evolution:

A process of varying allele frequencies among populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of reproductive organisms, compiled over successive generations, which can increase biodiversity when continuing variation among genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from the parent population.

We've observed speciation hundreds of times, which also means we've observed macroevolution by definition (the formation of new biologically distinct species). Put in sympatric or allopatric speciation in pubmed, and you'll get hundreds of peer reviewed examples. Alternately, put in "ring species."

We've "seen" cancer cells evolve pumps in response to drug treatment. We've seen bacteria acquire the ability to digest nylon (a man-made product). We've seen all sorts of evolution. I can watch evolution in my cell biology lab as bacteria require resistance to an antiobiotic of my choosing. We've seen the formation of new alleles, and watched those alleles become fixed in some population. Hell, any change in allele frequency is, by definition, evolution, and any such change in the face of selective pressure is adaptive (a matter of reproductive success)

All of this is unequivocally evolution, which is the only explanation we have for the nested hierarchy of life that we have (e.g. all apes are primates, all primates are eutherian mammals, all eutherian mammals are mammals, all mammals are amniotes, all amniotes are tetrapods, all tetrapods are vertebrates, all vertebrates are chordates, all chordates are metazoans, all metazoans are eukaryotes). We have literally no examples of this nesting being broken, ANY clear violation of this nesting would throw a wrench in the conclusion of evolution. This sort of groupings-within-groupings over time of life itself is overwhelming confirmation of evolution, and reinforced by everything else described above (of which these are a few small examples).

The only way you could honestly believe this is if you've never looked. There are examples of evolution going back no less than 150 years years, and many thousands which would be pretty hard to miss if you spent even five minutes in a search engine like BIOSIS.

Quote[/b] ]
Every time we see some kind of genetic abnormality, it always, in every case, makes the species weaker.

If you mean we've never observed beneficial mutations, you're wrong. We've observed plenty of beneficial mutations - any mutation which positively impacts reproductive success is, by definition, beneficial. Again, put in "beneficial mutation" into BIOSIS/pubmed, and tell me with a straight face we've never seen it happen.

Note that beneficial mutations represent a fraction of total mutations. Most mutations are neutral in effect (have no impact on reproductive success). Some are harmful. A small percentage are beneficial.

By definition, positive selection acts to increase the frequency of this genetic material over successive generations, whereas negative selection acts to weed out harmful genetic material. So this isn't at all a problem, and there's quite a bit of research looking at known rates of evolution in respect to these frequencies, and the general consensus seems to be that researchers are actually surprised evolution hasn't occurred more quickly on a gobal scale, given what's capable of happening in even a short time period in terms of divergence. This is one of many reasons that Gould/Eldredge proposed punctuated equilibrium (and not due to the absence of any "transitional" fossils - we have major transitions between most vertebrate groups, including fish-amphibians, amphibian-reptiles, reptile-mammals and reptile-birds).


If you'd like me to provide you some of these resources, just let me know.

Quote[/b] ]
I think natural selection gets confused for evolution far too many times.

No biologist who has beyond a first year undergrad understanding of evolution could ever mistake natural selection for evolution.

Natural selection is the process by which nature selects favorable genotypes relative to envrionmental demands in some population such that their representative genetic material increases in relative frequency in that population.
Natural selection acting upon the raw material of mutation is the driving force behind evolution as per Darwinian mechanics.
Imho, given the nature of your statements, it's fairly obvious where your information is coming from, Ron. This is what worries me about relying on creationist resources of information - in effect, they are lying to you about the state of science and what evidence actually exists.

Saying that we've never observed evolution to me is like saying that we've never observed hypertrophy in the lab. I'm curious how you could even make that statement without access to relevent literature, of if you've ever honestly looked, or just taken somebody else's word for it.

Most creationist resources are incapable of even properly defining evolution, as far as I can tell. When people won't acknowledge a definition in use by ~99.85-99.90% of biologists worldwide, you have a very troubling situation.

Anyways, you were probably right in the first place - this forum and this thread isn't the right place for this. But you've made a few patently ridiculous claims on the subject, and, as a biology major who's actually seen the evidence you deny even exists, I felt the need to correct you

Anyways, maybe we should take this to IM. If you're interested in looking at evidence first hand, we could do that without clogging up this thread/board.

 

[mikeynov]

Also, this board is horrific for trying to edit posts, so there's some errors in the above post, but hopefully it's legible. lol

In all honesty, if you have a chance, look to enroll in college-level courses on the subject. Masters level would be preferrable if you want to go deeply into research, but I'm guessing you're not THAT interested in the subect

It's a big world out there, and the amount of research on the topic of evolution is literally overwhelming. I could easily spend the rest of my life reading the research that's been conducted for the past 150 years and still only encounter a fraction of it.

 

[imported_ectoman]

Wow did this thread take a left turn ;-) But I would like to add this comment FWIW.

Most creationists and Darwinists don't understand evolutionary theory. It's a theory on the 'origin of species' not the 'origin of life'.

Understanding the difference completely negates any argument because there is none.

 

[NWlifter]

Mike, Mike, Mike, .... I know you have strong feelings for your belief structure as do I We could go back and forth on this for 50 more pages and neither of us will yeild. If we could solve this dilema and one of us prove the other guy wrong, we would be doing something no one has been able to do in the entire world. We might as well then go on to cure cancer and solve world hunger.  
I appreciate all the time you took for your explanations, I have done enough reading on evolution to be satisfied. What some call evolution, others call merely adaptive change or natural selection.
To me (remember this is 'to me' 'my opinion' 'my beliefs&#39, what they call evolution is so very weak I cannot understand how people can get wrapped up in it.  
Best wishes,
Ron

Ecto- I think the problem comes in when both theories collide. If God created the species, and the species are as they are talked about in the bible, and still are now, then evolution and creation contradict as evolution demands differences in the age of the earth, the state of the species over time, etc.

 

[Dood]

Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ June 21 2005,4:03)]If God created the species, and the species are as they are talked about in the bible, and still are now, then evolution and creation contradict as evolution demands differences in the age of the earth, the state of the species over time, etc.

Well since you are starting with speculation that has no proof at all.....
Aaahhh, I can't get involved in this.

I would like to thank Mr. Novak for his measured voice of reason, even if no one wants to listen....

 

[NWlifter]

Quote[/b] ]Well since you are starting with speculation that has no proof at all.....
Aaahhh, I can't get involved in this.

That's why I'm trying to avoid this line of discussion. There is no way to not insult someone.
You just saying 'speculation' and 'no proof' is a dig. From my perspective, creation has the evidence, artifacts even show verifying evidence of biblical writings, ancient texts, etc, also things I've seen and experienced have more than proven 'to me' that there is no doubt.

Quote[/b] ]
I would like to thank Mr. Novak for his measured voice of reason, even if no one wants to listen....

I could also sit and type post after post backing up my stand, but to what end? As you say, Mike is being the voice of reason but no one wants to listen, do you think if I went through hours of work listing articles, references, yada yada anyone else would listen to me?

Truth is, I've done that before, years ago on message boards, the good old creation vs evolution threads, every board gets one eventually and it always ends up the same. People lose respect for each other, feelings get hurt, people end up very frustrated and angry. It's not a good thing. I wish all boards would just nuke these kinds of threads right away before everything goes bad.

That's why I'm not trying to be 'the voice of reason' for my side and wasting hours of trying to convince people who don't want to be convinced of how I believe. I mean, if someone told you they thought HST was stupid, they didn't believe it worked, they don't want to beleive it works and they don't want to hear about it, .. would you post over and over trying to convince them?

Best wishes to all, let's try not to discredit each other and make a mess here,

Ron

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ June 22 2005,11:38)]You just saying 'speculation' and 'no proof' is a dig. From my perspective, creation has the evidence, artifacts even show verifying evidence of biblical writings, ancient texts, etc, also things I've seen and experienced have more than proven 'to me' that there is no doubt.

So science showing artifacts proves it (creation) to you, but science showing evolultion doesnt prove it?

 

[imported_dkm1987]

I'm not nuking it but I am locking it out.