Welcome to Gaia! ::

Batyah
1. i asked him
2. just because someone hasnt had the time to publish much, does not make his work invalid
3. refrences in other papers does not make someone right or wrong, just makes them popular, and last i checked evolution was popular, but doses not make it right by default. kinda like illigal drugs are popular, does not make them good by default


Let me just say I'm not trying to talk about if he's right or wrong at all. I'm not trying to steal nap's opportunity to answer, I just want to address a slightly different topic on why he's not a scientist.

For those outside the scientific culture, i suppose it can seem a little strange to rate someone based on publications, however this is indeed how it is. You're not anymore of a scientist if you don't publish than you're a doctor if you don't see any patients. Now of course I'm not saying he's wrong because he's unpublished. What I'm saying is that he's not a scientist. You can still be right about scientific ideas with out publication, but to be a scientist requires some kind of documentation of papers published. You can't even get a PhD in most fields with out publishing something.

If you want to see exactly what I mean simply look up the faculty of any college near you. Pick a hard science, like physics chemistry or biology. Pick any professor and put their name in and you'll see exactly how weird it is to have just one publication.
ElusiveMuse's avatar

Dangerous Pup

Batyah
well how come it dosent point toa common creator? and why are there not fossils of the evolution prosses, like beast turning into birds?

There are. Some are even living today, these in-betweens. If you're looking for a specific "missing link" - what connects mammals to birds, say - there are actually many. Each difference between species is subtle, which is why you might think they don't exist, or have to be as extreme as the platypus.

This is a really cool website.

It's fun to kind of play around with. Here is a list of all known species - and when I say 'known', it's because fossils or live specimens have been found to exist in nature. You can click one species, then another, then see what their common ancestor is, this 'common creator' you're asking for.

Evolution is a pretty well known process, as we can even induce evolution (natural selection) in nature if we want. Of course, if a creature lives longer, it'll take a lot more time, but in our lifetime we can see it happen with smaller organisms - insects, bacteria/archaea, sometime small mammals. Would you like an example? I wouldn't mind sharing.

If the idea of evolution bothers you because of religious views, it shouldn't. I'm Catholic, and very believing and practicing. I know most religions, not only Christian ones, would point to evolution being a hoax or interfering with the idea of their God, but this is how I think of it: evolution explains the how, not the why. And religion, to me at least, is all about the why and the faith it takes to believe in it.

I really don't mind continuing this discussion, and I hope I haven't offended you with my point of view.
Batyah's avatar

Shameless Worshipper

8,400 Points
  • Prayer Circle 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Autobiographer 200
ElusiveMuse
Batyah
well how come it dosent point toa common creator? and why are there not fossils of the evolution prosses, like beast turning into birds?

There are. Some are even living today, these in-betweens. If you're looking for a specific "missing link" - what connects mammals to birds, say - there are actually many. Each difference between species is subtle, which is why you might think they don't exist, or have to be as extreme as the platypus.

This is a really cool website.

It's fun to kind of play around with. Here is a list of all known species - and when I say 'known', it's because fossils or live specimens have been found to exist in nature. You can click one species, then another, then see what their common ancestor is, this 'common creator' you're asking for.

Evolution is a pretty well known process, as we can even induce evolution (natural selection) in nature if we want. Of course, if a creature lives longer, it'll take a lot more time, but in our lifetime we can see it happen with smaller organisms - insects, bacteria/archaea, sometime small mammals. Would you like an example? I wouldn't mind sharing.

If the idea of evolution bothers you because of religious views, it shouldn't. I'm Catholic, and very believing and practicing. I know most religions, not only Christian ones, would point to evolution being a hoax or interfering with the idea of their God, but this is how I think of it: evolution explains the how, not the why. And religion, to me at least, is all about the why and the faith it takes to believe in it.

I really don't mind continuing this discussion, and I hope I haven't offended you with my point of view.
i was a scientists before i was a believer , so affended i am not, i just found a view of a diffrent side and many hole sin evolution
Batyah's avatar

Shameless Worshipper

8,400 Points
  • Prayer Circle 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Autobiographer 200
ElusiveMuse
Batyah
well how come it dosent point toa common creator? and why are there not fossils of the evolution prosses, like beast turning into birds?

There are. Some are even living today, these in-betweens. If you're looking for a specific "missing link" - what connects mammals to birds, say - there are actually many. Each difference between species is subtle, which is why you might think they don't exist, or have to be as extreme as the platypus.

This is a really cool website.

It's fun to kind of play around with. Here is a list of all known species - and when I say 'known', it's because fossils or live specimens have been found to exist in nature. You can click one species, then another, then see what their common ancestor is, this 'common creator' you're asking for.

Evolution is a pretty well known process, as we can even induce evolution (natural selection) in nature if we want. Of course, if a creature lives longer, it'll take a lot more time, but in our lifetime we can see it happen with smaller organisms - insects, bacteria/archaea, sometime small mammals. Would you like an example? I wouldn't mind sharing.

If the idea of evolution bothers you because of religious views, it shouldn't. I'm Catholic, and very believing and practicing. I know most religions, not only Christian ones, would point to evolution being a hoax or interfering with the idea of their God, but this is how I think of it: evolution explains the how, not the why. And religion, to me at least, is all about the why and the faith it takes to believe in it.

I really don't mind continuing this discussion, and I hope I haven't offended you with my point of view.
my other debate guy, stay out of this till you finish your thesis razz lol
but any way, my problem with this is last i took a fish out of water it died, but there are few mammals that can breath water and air, a salamander is the only thing i can recall, lots of other creatures hold their breath. one would think this would be a cool thong to keep. also what of the creatures that went back into the water??isnt that counter intuitive? in your vid the dragon fly developed nice long wings over generations, if it didnt develop with a use when it first came out, why was it keept till it did? this goes against what i was taught about evolution, which is hay suddenly something new, if it dosent work you lose it, if it works you keep it, basically
here is a link or two , sorry it does not link its refrences but thats what we have google for ^^
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-creationism-faq.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/isd/andrew-mcintosh (my debate friend you should click this one)
and a vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s&feature=share
ElusiveMuse's avatar

Dangerous Pup

Batyah
ElusiveMuse
Batyah
well how come it dosent point toa common creator? and why are there not fossils of the evolution prosses, like beast turning into birds?

There are. Some are even living today, these in-betweens. If you're looking for a specific "missing link" - what connects mammals to birds, say - there are actually many. Each difference between species is subtle, which is why you might think they don't exist, or have to be as extreme as the platypus.

This is a really cool website.

It's fun to kind of play around with. Here is a list of all known species - and when I say 'known', it's because fossils or live specimens have been found to exist in nature. You can click one species, then another, then see what their common ancestor is, this 'common creator' you're asking for.

Evolution is a pretty well known process, as we can even induce evolution (natural selection) in nature if we want. Of course, if a creature lives longer, it'll take a lot more time, but in our lifetime we can see it happen with smaller organisms - insects, bacteria/archaea, sometime small mammals. Would you like an example? I wouldn't mind sharing.

If the idea of evolution bothers you because of religious views, it shouldn't. I'm Catholic, and very believing and practicing. I know most religions, not only Christian ones, would point to evolution being a hoax or interfering with the idea of their God, but this is how I think of it: evolution explains the how, not the why. And religion, to me at least, is all about the why and the faith it takes to believe in it.

I really don't mind continuing this discussion, and I hope I haven't offended you with my point of view.
my other debate guy, stay out of this till you finish your thesis razz lol
but any way, my problem with this is last i took a fish out of water it died, but there are few mammals that can breath water and air, a salamander is the only thing i can recall, lots of other creatures hold their breath. one would think this would be a cool thong to keep. also what of the creatures that went back into the water??isnt that counter intuitive? in your vid the dragon fly developed nice long wings over generations, if it didnt develop with a use when it first came out, why was it keept till it did? this goes against what i was taught about evolution, which is hay suddenly something new, if it dosent work you lose it, if it works you keep it, basically
here is a link or two , sorry it does not link its refrences but thats what we have google for ^^
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-creationism-faq.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/isd/andrew-mcintosh (my debate friend you should click this one)
and a vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s&feature=share


I'm gonna quote some things you said and comment on them.

"one would think this would be a cool thing to keep"

True, sometimes some species evolve something really awesome, and we have to wonder why all species aren't like this. Lungfish are fish that breathe air. That sounds great - why don't all fish breathe air as well as water if it evolved? Well the truth is, not all species are pressured into selecting for things like that. Example - picture a large lake with one main species of fish. Let's call them Fishers. There's something at the bottom of the lake that feeds on Fishers, something that wasn't always there. Now suddenly there's something the fish have to adapt to. Normal Fishers die because they get eaten, but some Fishers have little spikes on their back. It was random and not useful - like humans that are born with large hands or small hands, its random but something that happens - and these fish don't get eaten because it hurts the thing that tries to eat them. So, these Fishers with little spikes survive, and because all the other Fishers are dead, only have each other to mate with, and so the next generation (their babies) have a higher likelihood of having these little spikes since their parents both had. If they are born without them, they get eaten. Do this again and again and again, because unless the thing that eats them is removed from the lake, the ones without spikes will die. Then, when most Fishers have spikes, the thing that feeds on them still has to eat, so they'll eat the ones with smaller spikes, those with bigger spikes (again, by chance, like having two siblings from same parents having one more hair than the other, for example) will survive better. If they're the only ones alive, they'll have babies with those with big spikes, etc, until the Fishers are so different from what they used to be that they're considered a new species.

Also, I don't think I sent you a video of a dragonfly. <<; I think you're talking to the wrong person.

"if it didnt develop with a use when it first came out, why was it keept till it did?"

All organisms have a lot of different genes that, by chance, are shown more in others than in some. Even for people. Not everything is visible - some things are going on inside us that we have no use for, but exist anyway. By chance and mutations, they exist.

Now, let's think of a dragonfly, since you brought it up. Imagine its ancestor has no wings. Let's talk about how the wings evolved in that species, yes? You implied they were only useful when they were long, that when they first came out they were unuseful and so shouldn't have been kept. I challenge this by telling you that even tiny little wings that aren't strong enough to let them take off are useful, and give them an advantage over a creature almost the same, except without.

Imagine something, like in the lake, really likes to eat these things we'll call Dragonflies (even if we're assuming they have no full wings yet). Maybe something happened to its old home so it had to move, and where it moved to, there's a lot of Dragonflies, and they decide they love it and that's what they want to eat. It happens all the time in nature. Okay, so now these Dragonflies, which have no wings, have this new pressure on them. There's a few in that population that were 'freaks' until then, who had little nubs on their backs they could flap but had no use. It was a freak chance - it just happened, like people who are born with an extra thumb or who bald early. There's no use, it's a little weird, but it exists. Now these Dragonflies with just tiny nubs can flap them and create the tiniest bit of wingspan/air beneath them. Because of this, they're a tiny bit faster than the others. The ones who were slower, 'normal' without nubs on their back, get eaten first. Who's left to make babies? The ones with the little things sticking out of their backs. And like the Fishers in the example below, when two Dragonflies with little nubs on their backs have babies, there's a chance that they have nubs, too. Those with larger nubs (tiny wings) will go farther, will not get eaten, and will have babies with others who are faster because they have larger wings. Again and again until the Dragonflies became what they are today, because they were fastest and not eaten and were able to make babies.

Why didn't they, like the land mammals that went back into the ocean (whales, dolphins, seals) go back into the water and breathe that instead of air to get away from the thing that eats them? Why didn't they just learn to jump higher than they did? Why didn't they get spikes, like the Fishers, or breathe fire or learn to stab their predator? Because, by complete chance, there was no freak of Dragonflies that had the gene that let them do that. None of the original population was able to breathe water or jump higher, none had spikes and none had the instinct to stab. If they did, Dragonflies would be a lot different. But they didn't. What appeared was the tiny start of wings.

So, to make a long story short, even a little bit is better than nothing.

"but there are few mammals that can breath water and air"

No mammal breaths water/has gills. Any mammal found in the ocean still breathes air. It has to resurface to accomplish this, can hold their breath longer than we can, but they still need to breathe air.

Thanks for the links, I appreciate learning what the other side of this debate thinks, even if it doesn't seem sound. I'll check it out when I'm out of class. That said, if there are any points from those sites you want to make, feel free to. I feel like my arguments are pretty sound, but if you find holes in them, feel free to question and I'll try to explain it better.
Batyah's avatar

Shameless Worshipper

8,400 Points
  • Prayer Circle 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Autobiographer 200
ElusiveMuse
Batyah
ElusiveMuse
Batyah
well how come it dosent point toa common creator? and why are there not fossils of the evolution prosses, like beast turning into birds?

There are. Some are even living today, these in-betweens. If you're looking for a specific "missing link" - what connects mammals to birds, say - there are actually many. Each difference between species is subtle, which is why you might think they don't exist, or have to be as extreme as the platypus.

This is a really cool website.

It's fun to kind of play around with. Here is a list of all known species - and when I say 'known', it's because fossils or live specimens have been found to exist in nature. You can click one species, then another, then see what their common ancestor is, this 'common creator' you're asking for.

Evolution is a pretty well known process, as we can even induce evolution (natural selection) in nature if we want. Of course, if a creature lives longer, it'll take a lot more time, but in our lifetime we can see it happen with smaller organisms - insects, bacteria/archaea, sometime small mammals. Would you like an example? I wouldn't mind sharing.

If the idea of evolution bothers you because of religious views, it shouldn't. I'm Catholic, and very believing and practicing. I know most religions, not only Christian ones, would point to evolution being a hoax or interfering with the idea of their God, but this is how I think of it: evolution explains the how, not the why. And religion, to me at least, is all about the why and the faith it takes to believe in it.

I really don't mind continuing this discussion, and I hope I haven't offended you with my point of view.
my other debate guy, stay out of this till you finish your thesis razz lol
but any way, my problem with this is last i took a fish out of water it died, but there are few mammals that can breath water and air, a salamander is the only thing i can recall, lots of other creatures hold their breath. one would think this would be a cool thong to keep. also what of the creatures that went back into the water??isnt that counter intuitive? in your vid the dragon fly developed nice long wings over generations, if it didnt develop with a use when it first came out, why was it keept till it did? this goes against what i was taught about evolution, which is hay suddenly something new, if it dosent work you lose it, if it works you keep it, basically
here is a link or two , sorry it does not link its refrences but thats what we have google for ^^
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-creationism-faq.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/isd/andrew-mcintosh (my debate friend you should click this one)
and a vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s&feature=share


I'm gonna quote some things you said and comment on them.

"one would think this would be a cool thing to keep"

True, sometimes some species evolve something really awesome, and we have to wonder why all species aren't like this. Lungfish are fish that breathe air. That sounds great - why don't all fish breathe air as well as water if it evolved? Well the truth is, not all species are pressured into selecting for things like that. Example - picture a large lake with one main species of fish. Let's call them Fishers. There's something at the bottom of the lake that feeds on Fishers, something that wasn't always there. Now suddenly there's something the fish have to adapt to. Normal Fishers die because they get eaten, but some Fishers have little spikes on their back. It was random and not useful - like humans that are born with large hands or small hands, its random but something that happens - and these fish don't get eaten because it hurts the thing that tries to eat them. So, these Fishers with little spikes survive, and because all the other Fishers are dead, only have each other to mate with, and so the next generation (their babies) have a higher likelihood of having these little spikes since their parents both had. If they are born without them, they get eaten. Do this again and again and again, because unless the thing that eats them is removed from the lake, the ones without spikes will die. Then, when most Fishers have spikes, the thing that feeds on them still has to eat, so they'll eat the ones with smaller spikes, those with bigger spikes (again, by chance, like having two siblings from same parents having one more hair than the other, for example) will survive better. If they're the only ones alive, they'll have babies with those with big spikes, etc, until the Fishers are so different from what they used to be that they're considered a new species.

Also, I don't think I sent you a video of a dragonfly. <<; I think you're talking to the wrong person.

"if it didnt develop with a use when it first came out, why was it keept till it did?"

All organisms have a lot of different genes that, by chance, are shown more in others than in some. Even for people. Not everything is visible - some things are going on inside us that we have no use for, but exist anyway. By chance and mutations, they exist.

Now, let's think of a dragonfly, since you brought it up. Imagine its ancestor has no wings. Let's talk about how the wings evolved in that species, yes? You implied they were only useful when they were long, that when they first came out they were unuseful and so shouldn't have been kept. I challenge this by telling you that even tiny little wings that aren't strong enough to let them take off are useful, and give them an advantage over a creature almost the same, except without.

Imagine something, like in the lake, really likes to eat these things we'll call Dragonflies (even if we're assuming they have no full wings yet). Maybe something happened to its old home so it had to move, and where it moved to, there's a lot of Dragonflies, and they decide they love it and that's what they want to eat. It happens all the time in nature. Okay, so now these Dragonflies, which have no wings, have this new pressure on them. There's a few in that population that were 'freaks' until then, who had little nubs on their backs they could flap but had no use. It was a freak chance - it just happened, like people who are born with an extra thumb or who bald early. There's no use, it's a little weird, but it exists. Now these Dragonflies with just tiny nubs can flap them and create the tiniest bit of wingspan/air beneath them. Because of this, they're a tiny bit faster than the others. The ones who were slower, 'normal' without nubs on their back, get eaten first. Who's left to make babies? The ones with the little things sticking out of their backs. And like the Fishers in the example below, when two Dragonflies with little nubs on their backs have babies, there's a chance that they have nubs, too. Those with larger nubs (tiny wings) will go farther, will not get eaten, and will have babies with others who are faster because they have larger wings. Again and again until the Dragonflies became what they are today, because they were fastest and not eaten and were able to make babies.

Why didn't they, like the land mammals that went back into the ocean (whales, dolphins, seals) go back into the water and breathe that instead of air to get away from the thing that eats them? Why didn't they just learn to jump higher than they did? Why didn't they get spikes, like the Fishers, or breathe fire or learn to stab their predator? Because, by complete chance, there was no freak of Dragonflies that had the gene that let them do that. None of the original population was able to breathe water or jump higher, none had spikes and none had the instinct to stab. If they did, Dragonflies would be a lot different. But they didn't. What appeared was the tiny start of wings.

So, to make a long story short, even a little bit is better than nothing.

"but there are few mammals that can breath water and air"

No mammal breaths water/has gills. Any mammal found in the ocean still breathes air. It has to resurface to accomplish this, can hold their breath longer than we can, but they still need to breathe air.

Thanks for the links, I appreciate learning what the other side of this debate thinks, even if it doesn't seem sound. I'll check it out when I'm out of class. That said, if there are any points from those sites you want to make, feel free to. I feel like my arguments are pretty sound, but if you find holes in them, feel free to question and I'll try to explain it better.
here is one mroe link for you, fair warning its little more rude then most

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/index.htm
ElusiveMuse's avatar

Dangerous Pup

Batyah
ElusiveMuse
Batyah
ElusiveMuse
Batyah
well how come it dosent point toa common creator? and why are there not fossils of the evolution prosses, like beast turning into birds?

There are. Some are even living today, these in-betweens. If you're looking for a specific "missing link" - what connects mammals to birds, say - there are actually many. Each difference between species is subtle, which is why you might think they don't exist, or have to be as extreme as the platypus.

This is a really cool website.

It's fun to kind of play around with. Here is a list of all known species - and when I say 'known', it's because fossils or live specimens have been found to exist in nature. You can click one species, then another, then see what their common ancestor is, this 'common creator' you're asking for.

Evolution is a pretty well known process, as we can even induce evolution (natural selection) in nature if we want. Of course, if a creature lives longer, it'll take a lot more time, but in our lifetime we can see it happen with smaller organisms - insects, bacteria/archaea, sometime small mammals. Would you like an example? I wouldn't mind sharing.

If the idea of evolution bothers you because of religious views, it shouldn't. I'm Catholic, and very believing and practicing. I know most religions, not only Christian ones, would point to evolution being a hoax or interfering with the idea of their God, but this is how I think of it: evolution explains the how, not the why. And religion, to me at least, is all about the why and the faith it takes to believe in it.

I really don't mind continuing this discussion, and I hope I haven't offended you with my point of view.
my other debate guy, stay out of this till you finish your thesis razz lol
but any way, my problem with this is last i took a fish out of water it died, but there are few mammals that can breath water and air, a salamander is the only thing i can recall, lots of other creatures hold their breath. one would think this would be a cool thong to keep. also what of the creatures that went back into the water??isnt that counter intuitive? in your vid the dragon fly developed nice long wings over generations, if it didnt develop with a use when it first came out, why was it keept till it did? this goes against what i was taught about evolution, which is hay suddenly something new, if it dosent work you lose it, if it works you keep it, basically
here is a link or two , sorry it does not link its refrences but thats what we have google for ^^
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-creationism-faq.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/isd/andrew-mcintosh (my debate friend you should click this one)
and a vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s&feature=share


I'm gonna quote some things you said and comment on them.

"one would think this would be a cool thing to keep"

True, sometimes some species evolve something really awesome, and we have to wonder why all species aren't like this. Lungfish are fish that breathe air. That sounds great - why don't all fish breathe air as well as water if it evolved? Well the truth is, not all species are pressured into selecting for things like that. Example - picture a large lake with one main species of fish. Let's call them Fishers. There's something at the bottom of the lake that feeds on Fishers, something that wasn't always there. Now suddenly there's something the fish have to adapt to. Normal Fishers die because they get eaten, but some Fishers have little spikes on their back. It was random and not useful - like humans that are born with large hands or small hands, its random but something that happens - and these fish don't get eaten because it hurts the thing that tries to eat them. So, these Fishers with little spikes survive, and because all the other Fishers are dead, only have each other to mate with, and so the next generation (their babies) have a higher likelihood of having these little spikes since their parents both had. If they are born without them, they get eaten. Do this again and again and again, because unless the thing that eats them is removed from the lake, the ones without spikes will die. Then, when most Fishers have spikes, the thing that feeds on them still has to eat, so they'll eat the ones with smaller spikes, those with bigger spikes (again, by chance, like having two siblings from same parents having one more hair than the other, for example) will survive better. If they're the only ones alive, they'll have babies with those with big spikes, etc, until the Fishers are so different from what they used to be that they're considered a new species.

Also, I don't think I sent you a video of a dragonfly. <<; I think you're talking to the wrong person.

"if it didnt develop with a use when it first came out, why was it keept till it did?"

All organisms have a lot of different genes that, by chance, are shown more in others than in some. Even for people. Not everything is visible - some things are going on inside us that we have no use for, but exist anyway. By chance and mutations, they exist.

Now, let's think of a dragonfly, since you brought it up. Imagine its ancestor has no wings. Let's talk about how the wings evolved in that species, yes? You implied they were only useful when they were long, that when they first came out they were unuseful and so shouldn't have been kept. I challenge this by telling you that even tiny little wings that aren't strong enough to let them take off are useful, and give them an advantage over a creature almost the same, except without.

Imagine something, like in the lake, really likes to eat these things we'll call Dragonflies (even if we're assuming they have no full wings yet). Maybe something happened to its old home so it had to move, and where it moved to, there's a lot of Dragonflies, and they decide they love it and that's what they want to eat. It happens all the time in nature. Okay, so now these Dragonflies, which have no wings, have this new pressure on them. There's a few in that population that were 'freaks' until then, who had little nubs on their backs they could flap but had no use. It was a freak chance - it just happened, like people who are born with an extra thumb or who bald early. There's no use, it's a little weird, but it exists. Now these Dragonflies with just tiny nubs can flap them and create the tiniest bit of wingspan/air beneath them. Because of this, they're a tiny bit faster than the others. The ones who were slower, 'normal' without nubs on their back, get eaten first. Who's left to make babies? The ones with the little things sticking out of their backs. And like the Fishers in the example below, when two Dragonflies with little nubs on their backs have babies, there's a chance that they have nubs, too. Those with larger nubs (tiny wings) will go farther, will not get eaten, and will have babies with others who are faster because they have larger wings. Again and again until the Dragonflies became what they are today, because they were fastest and not eaten and were able to make babies.

Why didn't they, like the land mammals that went back into the ocean (whales, dolphins, seals) go back into the water and breathe that instead of air to get away from the thing that eats them? Why didn't they just learn to jump higher than they did? Why didn't they get spikes, like the Fishers, or breathe fire or learn to stab their predator? Because, by complete chance, there was no freak of Dragonflies that had the gene that let them do that. None of the original population was able to breathe water or jump higher, none had spikes and none had the instinct to stab. If they did, Dragonflies would be a lot different. But they didn't. What appeared was the tiny start of wings.

So, to make a long story short, even a little bit is better than nothing.

"but there are few mammals that can breath water and air"

No mammal breaths water/has gills. Any mammal found in the ocean still breathes air. It has to resurface to accomplish this, can hold their breath longer than we can, but they still need to breathe air.

Thanks for the links, I appreciate learning what the other side of this debate thinks, even if it doesn't seem sound. I'll check it out when I'm out of class. That said, if there are any points from those sites you want to make, feel free to. I feel like my arguments are pretty sound, but if you find holes in them, feel free to question and I'll try to explain it better.
here is one mroe link for you, fair warning its little more rude then most

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/index.htm


Sorry, I have no interest in reading anything that's going to talk down to me. I appreciate the warning of telling me it's rude. I'll avoid that site.

So you didn't question anything I said... does that mean you're a little open to the idea now?
Batyah's avatar

Shameless Worshipper

8,400 Points
  • Prayer Circle 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Autobiographer 200
ElusiveMuse


I'm gonna quote some things you said and comment on them.

"one would think this would be a cool thing to keep"

True, sometimes some species evolve something really awesome, and we have to wonder why all species aren't like this. Lungfish are fish that breathe air. That sounds great - why don't all fish breathe air as well as water if it evolved? Well the truth is, not all species are pressured into selecting for things like that. Example - picture a large lake with one main species of fish. Let's call them Fishers. There's something at the bottom of the lake that feeds on Fishers, something that wasn't always there. Now suddenly there's something the fish have to adapt to. Normal Fishers die because they get eaten, but some Fishers have little spikes on their back. It was random and not useful - like humans that are born with large hands or small hands, its random but something that happens - and these fish don't get eaten because it hurts the thing that tries to eat them. So, these Fishers with little spikes survive, and because all the other Fishers are dead, only have each other to mate with, and so the next generation (their babies) have a higher likelihood of having these little spikes since their parents both had. If they are born without them, they get eaten. Do this again and again and again, because unless the thing that eats them is removed from the lake, the ones without spikes will die. Then, when most Fishers have spikes, the thing that feeds on them still has to eat, so they'll eat the ones with smaller spikes, those with bigger spikes (again, by chance, like having two siblings from same parents having one more hair than the other, for example) will survive better. If they're the only ones alive, they'll have babies with those with big spikes, etc, until the Fishers are so different from what they used to be that they're considered a new species.

Also, I don't think I sent you a video of a dragonfly. <<; I think you're talking to the wrong person.

"if it didnt develop with a use when it first came out, why was it keept till it did?"

All organisms have a lot of different genes that, by chance, are shown more in others than in some. Even for people. Not everything is visible - some things are going on inside us that we have no use for, but exist anyway. By chance and mutations, they exist.

Now, let's think of a dragonfly, since you brought it up. Imagine its ancestor has no wings. Let's talk about how the wings evolved in that species, yes? You implied they were only useful when they were long, that when they first came out they were unuseful and so shouldn't have been kept. I challenge this by telling you that even tiny little wings that aren't strong enough to let them take off are useful, and give them an advantage over a creature almost the same, except without.

Imagine something, like in the lake, really likes to eat these things we'll call Dragonflies (even if we're assuming they have no full wings yet). Maybe something happened to its old home so it had to move, and where it moved to, there's a lot of Dragonflies, and they decide they love it and that's what they want to eat. It happens all the time in nature. Okay, so now these Dragonflies, which have no wings, have this new pressure on them. There's a few in that population that were 'freaks' until then, who had little nubs on their backs they could flap but had no use. It was a freak chance - it just happened, like people who are born with an extra thumb or who bald early. There's no use, it's a little weird, but it exists. Now these Dragonflies with just tiny nubs can flap them and create the tiniest bit of wingspan/air beneath them. Because of this, they're a tiny bit faster than the others. The ones who were slower, 'normal' without nubs on their back, get eaten first. Who's left to make babies? The ones with the little things sticking out of their backs. And like the Fishers in the example below, when two Dragonflies with little nubs on their backs have babies, there's a chance that they have nubs, too. Those with larger nubs (tiny wings) will go farther, will not get eaten, and will have babies with others who are faster because they have larger wings. Again and again until the Dragonflies became what they are today, because they were fastest and not eaten and were able to make babies.

Why didn't they, like the land mammals that went back into the ocean (whales, dolphins, seals) go back into the water and breathe that instead of air to get away from the thing that eats them? Why didn't they just learn to jump higher than they did? Why didn't they get spikes, like the Fishers, or breathe fire or learn to stab their predator? Because, by complete chance, there was no freak of Dragonflies that had the gene that let them do that. None of the original population was able to breathe water or jump higher, none had spikes and none had the instinct to stab. If they did, Dragonflies would be a lot different. But they didn't. What appeared was the tiny start of wings.

So, to make a long story short, even a little bit is better than nothing.

"but there are few mammals that can breath water and air"

No mammal breaths water/has gills. Any mammal found in the ocean still breathes air. It has to resurface to accomplish this, can hold their breath longer than we can, but they still need to breathe air.

Thanks for the links, I appreciate learning what the other side of this debate thinks, even if it doesn't seem sound. I'll check it out when I'm out of class. That said, if there are any points from those sites you want to make, feel free to. I feel like my arguments are pretty sound, but if you find holes in them, feel free to question and I'll try to explain it better.
here is one mroe link for you, fair warning its little more rude then most

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/index.htm

Sorry, I have no interest in reading anything that's going to talk down to me. I appreciate the warning of telling me it's rude. I'll avoid that site.

So you didn't question anything I said... does that mean you're a little open to the idea now?i new i forgot something XD let me go back and re read, but what i mean is its not gonna talk down to you, its just talks down evolution and explains why
on the fishers. but how does the fish just happen to evlolve the spikes, i can understand having something its already had grow in a wrong place, we see this all the time, but how would that become into someone genetics?let me ask this by asking the opposite, i know dwarfism is when a gna malfunctions and dosent let the person grow, and has a chance to pass it to their kids, but its only cause it s missing or not working,
and do you have an example of something like the fishers today?like we see the changing process or fossil records of changing with some random mutation that ended up being good for the lil fishers?
side note. big hands just happen, like example my dad is taller then the res of my family, but non of his offspring got any of his height, so to me a random mutation that causes a thing to evolve i dont think would be put into the genetic code, does that make sense ?big hands=genetics random sudden mutation=add to it, im not sure how to say this if you dont get what i mean XD
and the dragon fly was part of the vid from the interactive site you linked me
on dragon flies, ok i can understand it makes them faster but how would they know what material to grow their wings with, and what inter design works best and all?its not like a car where we can go oh this dosent work lets try this till we get it right, what if they got it part right then still didnt work, or what if the lil wing motion muscles didnt all develop as they needed to and such? see what i mean its gets highly complex x.x
and on humans, wherer the heck are our scales or fur or claws or anything to protect us? cause we shure as heck are not fast compared to other predators, we cant swim compared to animals in the water, we can only fly with machines. and why are we the ones dominating the world?why have no other animals developed a conciseness like we have?
If I hold an object in the air and let go, it falls to the ground.

The most developed and accepted theory as to why this happens is Gravity. However gravity is just that, a "theory". Same concept for evolution.

A lot of what makes up science are just strings of theories based on observations, as far as things like gravity or evolution go, we can not prove with 100% certainty that one particular theory is correct. At least not at this time.

Most world origin theories are fundamentally flawed anyway. Really we should be looking further in the future, we will probably never work out how we all got here, and even if we came close we would never know if we're right. Its a wasted effort.
Batyah's avatar

Shameless Worshipper

8,400 Points
  • Prayer Circle 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Autobiographer 200
Method1cal
If I hold an object in the air and let go, it falls to the ground.

The most developed and accepted theory as to why this happens is Gravity. However gravity is just that, a "theory". Same concept for evolution.

A lot of what makes up science are just strings of theories based on observations, as far as things like gravity or evolution go, we can not prove with 100% certainty that one particular theory is correct. At least not at this time.

Most world origin theories are fundamentally flawed anyway. Really we should be looking further in the future, we will probably never work out how we all got here, and even if we came close we would never know if we're right. Its a wasted effort.
agreed for the most part.
Batyah
Napgasm
DNA is the code that allows organisms to survive.
Sometimes that code acquires a mutation, sort of like a typo when you're typing. If a mutation in a gene grants an organism a distinct survival advantage over other organisms in its species, then it is more likely to reproduce and pass on that mutation. That advantageous mutation carries on through its progeny, until eventually, over hundreds or thousands of generations, that is the prominent form of the gene.
The whole "organism having a survival advantage" is natural selection.
A mutation in a single organism eventually becoming the dominant trait is evolution.
that is evolution in as simple and definite terms as I can think of.

Hope this suffices.
what about what this DNA scientists says? and guys im asking him specificly, and one vid in two parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crxH11h2g6k&list=PL6FB2DBE71930AF37&index=7&feature=plpp_video
]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2-gwcgX4t0&list=PL6FB2DBE71930AF37&index=8&feature=plpp_video


This guy is no way near a DNA scientist. And honestly, I'm quite offended by the things he is saying about genetics, because he is full of it.
He takes tidbits of accurate (I use that term loosely in his case) scientific information, and uses it to lead listeners to false truths. There is so much wrong with the things he is saying that I don't know where to start. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to try to argue with that, because if you're set on his teaching, then I won't bother wasting my time to change your mind. Believe what you want.
Science doesn't work in absolutes. It operates on the most likely conclusion given the available data.

That said, there's so much proof for evolution it's ridiculous. Why else do you think the Catholic Church publicly accepts biological evolution as a fact?

If you're looking for "proof" there is no alternative theory to evolution that will provide more evidence. Certainly not creationism, if that's what you believe in.

It's difficult to say what constitutes "absolute proof" but how about examples of evolution that you can see today?

Quote:
There are many examples of evolution happening right before our eyes. It’ll take far too long for me to list them and why, so I’ll give a quick list of the names and you can Google these for yourself if you don’t believe me (which you should). Peppered moths, three-toed skinks, crabs and mussels, Italian wall lizards, cane toads, Darwin’s finches, butterflies and parasites, viruses and superviruses (SARS, swineflu), flatfish, Australian skinks, elephants, fish in the Hudson River and many other species of lizards besides the ones I’ve mentioned.


From: http://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/5-facts-about-evolution/
Valtiel the Watcher's avatar

Lonely Capitalist

10,250 Points
  • Brandisher 100
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Honestly if the overwhelming amount of evidence is not enough then..... Absolute undeniable proof is insubstantial.

The reason why we don't have fossils for every single creature that ever was is because the process that creates fossils is so rare that there are many creatures that we may never find because they may have never been fossilized.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games