Evolution

[Gillipig]

Just starting this thread in case anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution shows up. I want to destroy someone! Please show up!?

[GBU56]

Just starting this thread in case anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution shows up. I want to destroy someone! Please show up!?

Guess you have not made it to the top of the evolutionary ladder yet, heh?

[Neoteny]

Evolution dictates that the very concept of a species is flawed, since, over the long term, a population exhibits a continuous chain of different forms. Indeed, Homo sapiens would trace it's lineage back through Pan, Australopithecus, etc. all the way to whatever pond scum spawned us. However this raises a problem in that, well, we see species all around us! If evolution were true, I should be able to reproduce, and lovingly raise offspring, with a duck ! Nonsense! Why then do we see trees and gazelle and naked mole rats? If evolution were true, and species lines were so blurred, I should be able to share my DNA with all of them!

The alternative, of course, is the Great Taxonomist: God. Not only is he a taxonomist, he is the very best kind: a splitter! So, we have boa constrictors and tube worms and crustaceans, and we all have our place. Have you ever seen someone mate with a Riftia and produce hybrid people tube worms? I think not.

[Timminz]

[General Brock II]

Evolution is most certainly false. Of course, the simple processes of genetics and natural selection are fine, so long as species regenerate their own kind. For example, it could be said that the mixed-breed canines "evolved" through genetics.

The fact that we all evolved from an amoeba is most certainly false.

Indeed, though it isn't evolutionary theory, where did the amoeba come from? How did it spawn to life in a hostile environment? How did it reproduce itself and mutate into a greater physical being? How did the next one reproduce and mutate? And so on?

[jimboston]

Just starting this thread in case anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution shows up. I want to destroy someone! Please show up!?

You have two people who have stated they don't believe. I would like to witness the destruction now.

I don't think you're up to the challenge.

[yang guize]

LOL. if you do not understand something then it must be god? this is excellent. you use the same pattern of thought as the ancients who thought that dragons live in the sky and under the sea, causing rain and waves and similar. i do not understand rain, so maybe it is a big dragon getting angry. maybe evolution is controlled by the dragons as well. LOL

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[IcePack]

I want to destroy someone!

Stick to games, you need the practise maybe one day you can destroy someone...

[General Brock II]

LOL. if you do not understand something then it must be god? this is excellent. you use the same pattern of thought as the ancients who thought that dragons live in the sky and under the sea, causing rain and waves and similar. i do not understand rain, so maybe it is a big dragon getting angry. maybe evolution is controlled by the dragons as well. LOL

Yang, this is the sort of flawed premise that your average anti-intelligent designer assumes. They make it into a culture war: "Religious radicals v. Atheists". It most certainly is not. Intelligent design is science in as much as the theory of evolution or Newtonion Physics are.

Pro-Intelligent Design theorists don't merely resort to saying that an unknown cause of something is God (indeed, there are actually alternate theories about Intelligent designer... The most likely is that the Omnipotent Deity known as God did create life). No, rather, they seek to explore what caused it, and the least improbable theory in existence is that God did create the Universe, Earth and life. However, do they stop there, using the excuse for all unknowns in the world? "Oh, that Quantum fluctuation was unexpected. Must have been God's doing."

No, of course not! Pro-Intelligent design theorists also believe in finding out whether or not there are natural causes for events (cause and effect). Or, even if they aren't, would they not be interested in finding out what occurred and why God may have wished for that fluctuation or occurrance? Even if a good scientist believes s/he has the answer, s/he continues to create more questions and gain further information.

This most certainly is not a "cop-off," except for your average uninformed anti-intelligent design individual. And if God does exist, then you had better laugh while you may.

[Frigidus]

Oh fun, it's been way too long since I've done this. There's really nothing like arguing over something that's already been definitively proven. It's much less likely to make me angry.

Evolution is most certainly false. Of course, the simple processes of genetics and natural selection are fine, so long as species regenerate their own kind. For example, it could be said that the mixed-breed canines "evolved" through genetics.

"Species" is really just a term that we use to make categorization possible, life is ultimately not nearly so cut and dry. For instance, we consider horses and donkeys to be separate species despite the fact that they can have mule offspring. The same is true of ligers and zebroids.

Consider also the clear and unbroken fossil chain demonstrating the evolution of man. While it is obviously impossible to know for certain, it is highly unlikely that a modern human could mate with an australopithecus (making us different species), but we know with certainty that we originate from them.

The fact that we all evolved from an amoeba is most certainly false.

Indeed, though it isn't evolutionary theory, where did the amoeba come from? How did it spawn to life in a hostile environment? How did it reproduce itself and mutate into a greater physical being? How did the next one reproduce and mutate? And so on?

The building blocks of life have been created in a lab using basic chemicals and electrical current. Given enough time it isn't so unlikely that more complex structures would be created as well. That said, biogenesis is a separate discussion from evolution.

[AndyDufresne]

BG, the last bit looks like what happen to humans in WALL-E.


--Andy

[Lord and Master]

"Species" is really just a term that we use to make categorization possible, life is ultimately not nearly so cut and dry. For instance, we consider horses and donkeys to be separate species despite the fact that they can have mule offspring. The same is true of ligers and zebroids.

The offspring cannot reproduce; they are sterile, so the parents of different (but in these examples very closely related) species cannot have VIABLE offspring, as the offspring cannot go on to be a parent itself.
What the f*ck is a zebroid?

[Neoteny]

There is another problem when accepting the theory of evolution in that the changes are so gradual that the reproductively beneficial effects are likely to be swamped by random noise. Hence speciation requires some other process. What you need is a kind of "accelerated evolution" that kicks in when the species needs to adapt or die. There is a such a process but before we consider it you would need to answer the obvious question - how would an animal "know" that accelerated evolution is required?

The answer is that during the fusion of sperm and egg, a check takes place to see how close the two sets of DNA are. If there is a healthy difference then normal amounts of variation take place - if, however, the two sets of DNA are very close then the system "knows" that there is a problem and therefore kicks into "high variation" mode.

Ridiculous? Unsupported?

I think not - attractive though my sister is I'm only going to breed with her if there aren't any other options. And what happens if a very small population in-breeds repeatedly? High levels of variation! What we think of as the effects of inbreeding are actually the deliberate result of the reproductive process kicking into "high variation mode" in the hope of creating a new variant that can best adapt to the current environment.

The genesis story supports this and illustrates how the authors were aware. The creation of Eve from Adam and the regular incest that occurs in the following chapters hark back to a time when the human population was so small that sis (or mom) was your best choice. This also suggests, that given the current success of humanity as a species, that this time actually resulted in a major positive development of humanity. So the concept of the "fall" is written from the perspective of an earlier (and less developed) hominid. Without the incest of genesis then speciation into homo erectus would never have happened. Genesis can be viewed as the last text of a dieing breed of human being replaced by our own kind.

Initially, that's how I see incest supports speciation, progress and more

[Lord and Master]

Interestingly I can't recall offhand where scripture states "Thou shalt not beget of thy sibling" or indeed "Thou shalt decry thy overly affectionate father as filthy perv". You must be right Neotony

[GoOs]

If evolution did occur and humans are merely chemical accidents how can the existence and nature of laws be explained?

[Lord and Master]

Evolution DID occur and humans ARE merely chemical accidents how other than through the application of the rigorous scientific method and mathematics can the existence and nature of laws be explained?

Fixed!

[Frigidus]

"Species" is really just a term that we use to make categorization possible, life is ultimately not nearly so cut and dry. For instance, we consider horses and donkeys to be separate species despite the fact that they can have mule offspring. The same is true of ligers and zebroids.

The offspring cannot reproduce; they are sterile, so the parents of different (but in these examples very closely related) species cannot have VIABLE offspring, as the offspring cannot go on to be a parent itself.
What the f*ck is a zebroid?

Sure, the offspring are sterile, but my point is that mules and the like are the last remnant of one species splitting into two.

Also, zebroids.

If evolution did occur and humans are merely chemical accidents how can the existence and nature of laws be explained?

Laws as in the laws of physics? Laws as in legal code? I'm not sure how the existence of either of those would affect evolution's validity.

[Army of GOD]

you evolutionists are idiots. Bacteria doesn't have consciousness. Animals, plants, fungi, etc. don't have consciousness. Consciousness was a gift given by God the us humans because he loves us and created us in his image.

[Frigidus]

you evolutionists are idiots. Bacteria doesn't have consciousness. Animals, plants, fungi, etc. don't have consciousness. Consciousness was a gift given by God the us humans because he loves us and created us in his image.

Well, I know when I've been beat. Well played, sir.

[Army of GOD]

Christians: 45,000
Atheists: 0

[Maugena]

That's pretty awesome, haha...

[Maugena]

There is another problem when accepting the theory of evolution in that the changes are so gradual that the reproductively beneficial effects are likely to be swamped by random noise. Hence speciation requires some other process. What you need is a kind of "accelerated evolution" that kicks in when the species needs to adapt or die. There is a such a process but before we consider it you would need to answer the obvious question - how would an animal "know" that accelerated evolution is required?

The answer is that during the fusion of sperm and egg, a check takes place to see how close the two sets of DNA are. If there is a healthy difference then normal amounts of variation take place - if, however, the two sets of DNA are very close then the system "knows" that there is a problem and therefore kicks into "high variation" mode.

Ridiculous? Unsupported?

I think not - attractive though my sister is I'm only going to breed with her if there aren't any other options. And what happens if a very small population in-breeds repeatedly? High levels of variation! What we think of as the effects of inbreeding are actually the deliberate result of the reproductive process kicking into "high variation mode" in the hope of creating a new variant that can best adapt to the current environment.

The genesis story supports this and illustrates how the authors were aware. The creation of Eve from Adam and the regular incest that occurs in the following chapters hark back to a time when the human population was so small that sis (or mom) was your best choice. This also suggests, that given the current success of humanity as a species, that this time actually resulted in a major positive development of humanity. So the concept of the "fall" is written from the perspective of an earlier (and less developed) hominid. Without the incest of genesis then speciation into homo erectus would never have happened. Genesis can be viewed as the last text of a dieing breed of human being replaced by our own kind.

Initially, that's how I see incest supports speciation, progress and more

That's pretty badass if this is true. I would never have guessed that. :O

One point regarding evolution: The term itself implies advancement. Species change over time, yes. This is a fact of nature. It isn't always evolution, though. You could consider it to be devolution, but that's not really the appropriate term for it. Variety may breed traits that are not advantageous. What happens to those offspring is that they simply die off, usually.

Also: What a waste of resources it is to preserve endangered species. Something will just fucking replace it. Get over it.

[yang guize]

it is not true. inbreeding in your family is made illegal in the west because two people with very similar dna have a higher chance to pass on a genetic disease to their child if they have it, because they are passing on a much greater number of similar genes.

also, someone said i am an athiest which i am not. i am buddhist.

[puppydog85]

Well, here is another one. Evolution is not science. For a scientific test you must also have the capability to have a negative outcome. Survival of the fittest does not have that ability, making it an untestable theory. If Evolution is built upon survival of the fittest then you have an unprovable theory at its base.