54 replies to this topic

[Jennysaur]

This is an interesting analogy. I might show it to my biology teacher.
We recently learned about evolution.. which I definitely believe. I don't understand the entire God created the earth type of thing.
I mean, I am religious, but its just illogical.

[Formaldehyde]

What I don't understand is why some religious groups don't believe in Evolution. I mean yeah....it goes against what the bible says but there is so much evidence to support evolution. Well granted, it's more like circumstantial evidence, but regardless.

[Nunc]

We live in such a mysterious universe, don't we? Some people say that science clears up all the mysteries for us. In my opinion it only creates more!

Edited by Nunc, 25 February 2011 - 07:05 PM.

[Unseen]

Homie, If you think Pokemon isn't for the big boys, think again. I have dedicated the past few months just trying to figure out my rotation with my UU Tier team. Shit takes DEDICATION. With new Pokemon being released on March 6th, who knows the possibilities with the new movepools those new Pokemon can harbor.

But yada yada yada regular evolution is cool too. Maybe in a 23847623846324 years my ancestors will look like Blastoise!!!

Now if you turn into a Blastoise we have some issues.

[WasteLand]

the colour changing distracted me from reading the entire thing

[leurz]

So why don't we see a massive continuum, then--instead of such distinct species?

We do see a very extensive continuum.

(relevant starting at 2:50)

the cambrian explosion, in which many complex organisms appear at once, from just a few very simple ancestors.

http://www.amazon.co...98700042&sr=1-1
Read that.

Are you taking issue with the theory or with the analogy?
I for one think the analogy is viable, especially since it being used to combat the "dinos ran uphill during Noah's flood so their fossils are higher than trilobites" theory.

[Sweeney]

This thread was a huge let down.

[Boggart]

This thread was a huge let down.

Why? Everyone was pretty insightful

the colour changing distracted me from reading the entire thing

nvm..

[leurz]

You should have posted it on some fundamentalist Christian forum if you wanted an exciting thread.

[Nunc]

I think evolution is false.

Like for example, there are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ex nihilo.

[mlv]

You mean there's no difference between micro and macro-evolution and instead of that macro-evolution is composed by a few micro-evolutions?
Even I'm a Christian I believe in Evolution but I can't understand half of the things Nunc said above me.

[vurty]

Great arguement. I'm not bashing religion at all, i am very for people believing what they want. But I almost think it's ignorant to say that evolution is not possible, and that we were put here by a "god". There's so much evidence and it just makes sense. It's one thing if people want to believe that evolution happened because of a god..but to say there was no evolution is just being ignorant..in my opinion anyways.

[Jake]

This doesn't explain why Muhammad asked me to jihad my enemies and non-believers!

Edited by Jake, 04 May 2011 - 10:32 AM.

[Xwee]

I think evolution is false.

Like for example, there are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ex nihilo.

There is no report of it, cause no one noticed it. Lets say one man wants a dog with certain attributes from a handful of other dogs. He would then proceed to breed that dog into existance, using a base look to keep breeding back in. Until eventually the dogs are born exactly how he wants them. So think of this, it's a faster version of evolution, but still goes slowly, taking generations of pups to get to the final result desired.

Lets say the animal looses hair, over the course of X years it would gradually get less and less as that is the best survival trait.. then lets say it needed to be able to reach something out of it's reach. It would slowly get a more straight spine, then it needs to work some tools.. so its webbed hands would slowly diminish. It wouldn't happen in just a few generations, it would take about 50 generations or more to make, over which there's no one around to watch the slow change from one appearance to another. Eventually after so many changes, it would then become what we, today, call a Homo Sapien.

This is my understanding of Micro-evolution. Sure we're not harry little chimps anymore, but this is the survival trait most valued during those years.

[ilovepolkadots]

Sure we're not harry little chimps anymore, but this is the survival trait most valued during those years.

then why are there chimps living in the same area as humans have been for centuries?

[jaredennisclark]

then why are there chimps living in the same area as humans have been for centuries?

I believe it has something to do with the fact that we have not begun to have enough sex with them.

[giraffe]

I believe it has something to do with the fact that we have not begun to have enough sex with them.

So this was really funny to begin with, but then I noticed that it says ENOUGH sex with them.

How much sex with monkeys do you have?

[frostz]

nice im gona borrow that argument and show it to my friends.

[Surrico]

I think evolution is false.

Like for example, there are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.

Charles Darwin actually documented the changes of a species in his Origin of Species with the finches of the Galapagos Islands.

The most striking and important fact for us in regard to the inhabitants of islands, is their affinity to those of the nearest mainland, without being actually the same species. [In] the Galapagos Archipelago... almost every product of the land and water bears the unmistakable stamp of the American continent. There are twenty-six land birds, and twenty-five of these are ranked by Mr. Gould as distinct species, supposed to have been created here; yet the close affinity of most of these birds to American species in every character, in their habits, gestures, and tones of voice, was manifest.... The naturalist, looking at the inhabitants of these volcanic islands in the Pacific, distant several hundred miles from the continent, yet feels that he is standing on American land. Why should this be so? why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plain a stamp of affinity to those created in America? There is nothing in the conditions of life, in the geological nature of the islands, in their height or climate, or in the proportions in which the several classes are associated together, which resembles closely the conditions of the South American coast: in fact there is a considerable dissimilarity in all these respects. On the other hand, there is a considerable degree of resemblance in the volcanic nature of the soil, in climate, height, and size of the islands, between the Galapagos and Cape de Verde Archipelagos: but what an entire and absolute difference in their inhabitants! The inhabitants of the Cape de Verde Islands are related to those of Africa, like those of the Galapagos to America. I believe this grand fact can receive no sort of explanation on the ordinary view of independent creation; whereas on the view here maintained, it is obvious that the Galapagos Islands would be likely to receive colonists, whether by occasional means of transport or by formerly continuous land, from America; and the Cape de Verde Islands from Africa; and that such colonists would be liable to modification;—the principle of inheritance still betraying their original birthplace.

[frostz]

I think evolution is false.

Like for example, there are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ex nihilo.

I dont understand why the concept this is so hard to understand. Evolution refers to the subtle mutations a particular species accumulates over time until it has been transformed into an entirely different species. Usually this occurs when the two are no longer able to breed with each other.

For example you can't dispute that species do not change over time. Thats how we get all the different types of dog breeds after all, and the domestication of an animal could probably be considered devolution... but the same idea applies except we are manually breeding animals to enhance desired traits.

Essentially "evolution" occurs from an academic standpoint when an organism changes so much that scientists have to come up with a new classification for it. But it is still a process of variation accumulation. We can see this happening all the time in bacteria because they reproduce so quickly.

When we are looking at things like the evolution of monkey and humans we arn't saying that humans evolved from monkeys but rather from a shared ancestor. Somewhere along the way as they adapted to new environments, the variations caused them to divulge into 2 different species. We can also see this sort of thing occur in pre human hominids.

[batryn]

What're the other theories? Because I thought this one was proven? Or not... but like the one where someone just put life on the planet was pretty much dis proven right?

What're the other theories? Because I thought this one was proven? Or not... but like the one where someone just put life on the planet was pretty much dis proven right?

[buttcheeks]

wiki has a lot of info too you know =\

[chess211]

I think evolution is false.

Like for example, there are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ex nihilo.

Beyond the people saying that no one noticed it. Our historical records are kind of slim, they go back at most 6 thousand years or so, and even that is going to be a very incomplete record of what people wrote. Considering that biologists believe that homo sapiens (modern humans) have been around for 200 thousand years, are recorded history is very small compared to the scale of just human existence, and significantly less than the hundreds of million of years that live has been around.

We also have a poor catalog of life, otherwise we would have a direct observation of one species evolving into another. In 1975 biologists in Japan discovered a type of bacteria that consumes the waste products from nylon manufacturing, since this food source is entirely artificial in nature, the bacteria could not have existed before humans started making nylon. Thus it must be a recent evolution, and would be distinct from its previous source.

So either God is still creating new species like the nylon eating bacteria, or it spontaneously arose from nothing, or you have to accept the scientific consensus that evolution is correct and is still ongoing.

[buttcheeks]

viruses and other microbial life are constantly changing and adapting, showing true evidence of evolution