1136 replies to this topic

[Ragamuffin]

I think the world needs a new interpretation on the theory of evolution in general. A lot of points have been brought up and struck down in this thread but I'll make mention of the whole fossil debate first since I was a paleontology nut in my younger days.Quoted for truth:People have already noted that it takes certain conditions for fossils to form. You can't make judgements for or against evolution based on an incomplete fossil record. However, the fossil evidence does seem to help evolutionists more in the fact that there are a number of creatures that have died out that no longer exist which certainly aren't covered by the Bible, and they seemed (by geological and archeological evidence at least) to have come a great deal before humans have ever made an appearance. So much for 7 days.So what, if not fossil evidence, can we look to as an example for the proof of evolution at work? Well, for one we have to think more on a genetic level. First we have to take the traditionally studied (we'll get to epigentics later since it's relatively a novelty, especially for those whose highest education in biology/genetics is from high school) means for genetic variance into consideration. In fact, the only thing that we're actually taught as a source for genetic variance in high school is...well radiation. Let me know if you find something else in those textbooks for the source of genetic variance. I haven't been back there in ages. Breeding is of course the other common source, but that's only within the same species and well there's not much on the info of where the source stocks for genetic firsts come from there. Basically we're working with very little. Sometimes mutations make it into the species, sometimes it doesn't. Yadda yadda.Epigenetics is...well...genetics with a twist. Boiled down, it states that certain traits may be exhibited from a hidden genetic repository if the organism is subjected to certain conditions. Variations within that scope may also cause progeny to be predisposed to have those traits readily available, even if the previous generation, having been exposed to said condition, did not exhibit the trait (something of a delay perhaps). More information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia....iki/EpigeneticsThe easiest example to use in showing the mechanics of evolution (in this case peripatric adaptation, with a few twists) that I can readily come up with is sickle cell anemia and of course malaria. Obviously, the normal Joe Shmoe going into sub-Sarahan Africa (or other needs to be damned careful not to catch malaria. Not so for those with a certain recessive gene. Of course, two of that same gene is considered a bad thing. Of course, this trait is mostly limited to those who are decended of certain regions. What about the people whose lineage can't be traced back there but still have that gene? Mystery? Or perhaps a remnant of an outdated period in human history? Regardless, the source of the gene points to evolution. However, whether the cause is accidental and mutational or epigenetic, we cannot be sure. I'm fairly certain there's not many normal group of non-sickle cell human beings willing to live and start civilation in a malarial region of the world just to see if their progeny manage to develop the gene out of the recesses of a theoretical totipotential genome pool. However, regardless, if normal survival of the fittest rules apply, then if that group of humans do not develop said traits in breeding epigenetically and they don't happen upon some mutation to counteract malaria, they will soon be excluded from the gene pool and that is part of the natural elimination process of evolution. Similarly, if they do manifest traits to combat malaria in future generations, then they've managed to stay in "the game" so to speak.However, this is merely a case of small scale evolution creating minor deviations within a species. How then would one entirely different species deviate from another? Is it a graduation of minor deviations and heavy regionalizations? Or does speciation occur with some major mutation causing incapatibility with previous generations? I think what everyone is actually opposed to is the latter. We (the human species) can't suddenly have been birthed hairless from a monkey, it makes no sense. What then would we be able to procreate with if we're suddenly no longer a monkey, but a man? Speciation must have been excruciatingly gradual. I think the time frame that the nay sayers are considering in their minds is perhaps a bit too small to have provided the proper duration for one species to have come from another.Archaeologists specifically confront and investigate the human prehistory and the evolutionary stages assocated with our advent as a species. For the sake of furthering (I know how creationists are opposed to their findings but bear with me regardless) this discussion we'll assume they have found certain INTERVAL stages in the human evolutionary chain. Not all of these supposed primate variations were necessarily part of that chain (in all likelihood any number of them could have been discontinued and excluded from the actual chain). They aren't necessarily in order either and they CERTAINLY don't compse a full and complete set by any means. However, they DO point to a progression in species.In sum, there are those who try to discredit the concept of evolution as a whole by pointing out major holes in the fossil records and that certainly is a cause for doubt. However, taking more specific cases into consideration and examining speciation on smaller scales (like certain dinosaurs progressing into avians) one can certainly not deny the possiblity that evolution may carry continue to hold even more water as more of this so called "fossil evidence" is collected.As a final note, evolution need not necessarily be Darwinian. Epigenetics certainly brings a whole new spin on things and along with a few other recent developments brings Lamarckian evolution back to the table, but it is certainly still ridiculous on its own. Also, the Baldwin effect is certainly observable. Don't just count out evolution for what Darwin didn't cover.

I support evolution, all that I said was that neither evolution nor cerationism could be fully proven or disproven. Alot of people just think it's a bunch of B.S. unfortunatly, and there is no convincing people like that.

Edited by No. Just no., 14 March 2007 - 10:40 PM.

[Ragamuffin]

I dont believe in evolution thats dumb how do u become a fish to a monkey thats stupid i beleive in the bible because it is the 100 percent truth u know what im saying.

You sir, are a complete silly goose.Ever heard of a little man called Charles Darwin? He'll explain it to you while a doctor removes that Bible that's stuck in your rectum.

[Ish]

to me evolution is not really a problem no i don't believe we came from monkeys but what i do believe is that there are much more important things to be talking about than evolution okay whatever evolution doesn't change how we think or act or change the world so what's the point of talking about it

[Huang Fei Hong]

I support evolution, all that I said was that neither evolution nor cerationism could be fully proven or disproven. Alot of people just think it's a bunch of B.S. unfortunatly, and there is no convincing people like that.

I...just cited your statement as one of truth...what exactly was this comment for? Other than saying that you neither disagree nor agree (though it sounds like you feel bit more of the latter), this didn't seem to add to anything. :)Interesting that you're the only person to even touch on what I said directly, and you've ignored me (and you seem to agree! *gasps in shock*). Ironic, but eh.

Perhaps I should mention something: there are two kinds of evolution: micro and macro.Microevolution is a proven fact. It means that a species can adapt to an enviroment. This can happen through breeding, mutation, and other factors. The species has changed, but most of the changes are extremely minor, and the species remains the same.Macroevolution is not a proven fact. It is the idea that a species can change from one thing to another. This is what most people mean by evolution. Monkey to man. I do not agree with it. Microevolution changes the species, yes, but you can't say that it is a new species, unless you're being really precise. I'm not talking small changes here, I'm talking about big, whomping changes that get in your face. Like growing fins and gills, or evolving feathers and wings.I agree with micro, not macro.

Gascmarki, you realize that just about everything that has an operational "micro" compartment usually tends to have a macro counterpart.Microbiology -> Macrobiology (larger creatures)Microeconomoics -> MacroeconomicsThose are just two examples and in both, a large part of the macro is made up of (or can be descried by) the "micro" component. Even physics can be separated by the two different viewpoints taken by the quantum physists (they would be the micro in this case) and the classical physicists.Find me a scenario in the world which you an prove only a "micro-" can apply, because I'm curious to see how your logic can deny that having micro-evolution proven is a sign that macro-evolution is also an operational concept.Fins and gills, feathers and wings, fur and mammaries, etc.: All of these things are merely boiled down to DNA coding which is very vulnerable to change through radiation and a few other factors. Notably a large number of these changes are neglected as they are either translated to cancer or some other condition and even if they aren't, the genetic SNAFU needs to hit the part that's used to make kids for it to be continued, but considering the sheer number of genetic mishaps that manifest in birth defects in the world today, it's really not a big stretch to say mutation can provide a large amount of variety to back up the claims of evolution.You, sir, really have no case.

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 15 March 2007 - 08:07 PM.

[Ragamuffin]

I...just cited your statement as one of truth...what exactly was this comment for? Other than saying that you neither disagree nor agree (though it sounds like you feel bit more of the latter), this didn't seem to add to anything.

Well, I put that because it seems like you're trying to convince people that cannot be convinced, they're too fixated on the Bible and such. I've already tried to convince them :/I put that comment actually because for one, your post was insightful, and also very long, but the diehard creationists are gonna disregard it anyways. So I basically gave up on arguing and trying to back up evolution, though I'm glad that some people still are.

[lelecolm]

I belive in a greaten force twho put all of all together to live eat prolify and die, evolution comes after that /

[Huang Fei Hong]

Yeah, this discussion is getting old. It's not fun being the only creationist on the forum with the ability to make a coherent statement. I say, we agree to disagree, and move on to better things. (well, okay, maybe not better, but still, move on)

You? Coherent? I beg to differ with evidence from your own statements.

It's one thing to say that an animal can adapt. This is a proven fact. Bacteria can develop resistances to antibiotics. Animals can grow in size and color.It's one completely different thing to say that a bacterium can become a plant, or a fish, or a mammal. This just doesn't make sense to me. These are changes on a much larger magnitude.My biggest problem with evolution is that it asks me to accept too many chances. This protein had to do that so this enzyme would make this happen... the probability of life even happening is staggering, and evolution asks me to accept this as normal. I do not accept this as normal. You can have evolution, I'll keep my God.

Aside from blatant grammatical and spelling errors laced throughout your post, you are basically calling the concept of evolution a game of chance and that life is too complicated to have just been mashed together by "random factors." Riiight. Amateursuperhero's explanation is ok, but here's some more fuel to that fire. To me, biology is but a derivation of chemistry (which in turn is a derivation of physics, but we'll stick to just the chemical nature of biology for now). So you say even the probability of life being enacted by scientific phenomenon is slim correct? Let me pain a picture that illustrates otherwise.We of the Terran variety of flora and fauna are carbon based life forms. Of course in our biochemical processes, we also utilize oxygen, sodium, chloride, etc. etc. Basically we're a collection of chemical elements, all of which are abundant on this planet. So what dictates that life forms are alive? Well to be simple, we'll say the ability to metabolize and to reproduce. So what chemical combinations are required for a life form to exist? You can refer to a high school textbook for most of this. What you'll find is that there's really not a lot in something like an amoeba, but it certainly is alive. Considering that atoms only combine certain ways due to a number of nitpicky rules and that thermal energy is a large part of the equation when it comes to molecular chemistry, there aren't too many ways for the heated primordial soup that was theorized to be on Earth at its infancy to go. Single celled life has already proven itself to be fairly simple to cook up in labs already and with the entire planet under similar conditions, there had to have been quite a number of variations as well competing for a dwindling supply of energy (especially since the Earth was cooling down). Thus with survival on the line, the organisms either carried on into the next generation, or they didn't. The fact that DNA/RNA is the blueprint for these organisms and the fact that such blueprints were prone to change and outside influences made for some interesting developments with new types of proteins and enzymes being translated regularly during the early stages of evolution. Simple organisms are far less affected by genetic mishaps than complicated ones are so radiation did less to harm life than it did to give it variety. Thus with variety on the rise, but survival getting more difficult with increasing organism populations and diminishing food supplies, these changes were put to the test and thus the concept of survival of the fittest kicked in high gear and the rest is history.Now tell me, honestly, does that story REALLY seem that outlandish to you religious devouts?The only ways you've really argued against it is by calling life too complicated for random happenstance to produce and blindly saying that God made everything. *sigh* This is why the only valid argument for even the existence of God is the Deist tenet of the cosmological argument (which I subscribe to). At least our logic follows causation. You people, on the other hand suffer from circular arguments and the blind trust in texts that were written by nomads who barely learned to write.I'll quote one of my favorite scientist here to help you all think a bit and put all you Creationists at ease with this looming "threat" of evolutionism. "God does not play dice." Science doesn't rely on chance and God to me is science (and morality, but that's not the issue here), just as he is to you "the Way, the Truth, and the Light." I see him (at least in part) as the all-powerful edicts which direct the functionality of this universe. To me God is more methodological than just someone who would make every single thing manually. Someone who knows all would simply create the rules necessary for the universe to operate as he sees fit and simple set the marble rolling and leave the rest on autopilot. Did Genesis cover subatomic particles and gravity? No. Religious texts were written in a day and age when human understanding of the world around them was limited to what they could see, hear, touch, and taste with their unassisted senses. Is God obligated to explain every single little thing to such simpletons? No. He did trust in the future generations of mankind to figure things out for themselves, which we did. Clearly, he didn't tell us the world was round before we eventually figured out for ourselves (finally...though there is that flat world theory still stirring around somewhere on the Internet I have to thank DGEmu for that frightening bit of knowledge).To me, the silliest thing that goes on here is that religion and science can't seem to be reconciled with each other and it's mostly the religious who get queasy around science (if only you could stay away from government with such fervor, oh the joy). People, if you really believe in an all-powerful and all knowing God, you can trust that whatever science we as humans discover does nothing to disprove him, but simply shows more of his majesty. God is the prime cause of all things. Even science is but one of his products.The only real reason you creationists so oppose evolution is because you don't want to hear that we're related to monkeys. I'm sorry but if you look at Bush you'll see the family resemblance. According to Christians, God created us in his likeness. What exactly does that imply? Mental? Physical? Spiritual? All of the above? For the hardheaded and hauty ones, they'd like to pick option D. So if we're supposed to be so much like God, why do we sin (Yes, I know why in the Christian sense already, so please don't start. That stuff doesn't apply here. The question ONLY asks why Sin would be in our nature if we're supposed to be made in his image. No, it's not because of Satan or Eve or the fruit.)? Why did we need the fruit of knowledge to be intelligent in the first place? I think the only thing that's really part of God's image in us is our free will, because honestly, God doesn't need a physical body.Note: I don't necessarily believe that God is male. I just didn't feel like typing he/she/it for each time I referred to God with a pronoun.

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 16 March 2007 - 05:30 PM.

[Huang Fei Hong]

Do you always dodge arguments?

Nah, he dodges the person who can put his faith away for good. You've seen it before on the other topics amateursuperhero. I lock arguments down like nobody else on this forum.Edit: Can we all agree that I've basically won this one in three posts? XDI think I also won it on the "God real or not" topic also with TWO posts, unless Zennalathas comes back and tries to make his case again. In "should gays have the right to marry?" my two posts remain uncontested as well. This pattern certainly chalks up a number of victories for me.

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 17 March 2007 - 01:03 AM.