|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:49 pm
I would also like to point out that we are all trying to discuss evolution in a debate and only talking of one side.
During the debate of evolution, the sides go as shown:
Possibility of Evolution being real > Possibility of it being fake
The only evidence supporting the side that evolution could just be another fake theory is the parts where not enough is known about evolution.
If we filled in those little cracks and holes, then where might the argument stand?
Needless to say, I see why we shouldn't believe in evolution when there is more evidence supporting it than denying it.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:10 pm
xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph If it's harmful, the creature dies and the trait is not passed on. Likely. Keep in mind, under the right circumstances, such as a safe habitat, the creature COULD survive with harmful or pointless mutations. It's just less likely. Name an instance where this might be the case, though. As for other complex organs, it works in the same way- first scales and exoskeletons to protect the body, then mutations to bones on the inside for improved organ support, for example. Or small blood pumps growing more complex as they mutate in more efficient ways and becoming hearts. An example of a "negative" mutation in humans would be, as mentioned, tonsils, the appendix, and the knee. The knee is a very weak bone structure and is not well crafted- It's easy to dislocate and isn't held down well. Compared to other joints, it's a mutation "downwards", and in more dangerous conditions, or conditions where humans weren't smart enough to make weapons, we'd be more or less screwed because of it. As for in between stages, they have been mentioned here often- Whales have back leg bones but no back legs. Humans have appendixes, manatees apparently have toenails. The in-between for complex organs are creatures that see light and shape but not depth or color- I would guess aquatic creatures of some sort, likely deeper in the water as seeing depth is pointless when you only get a glimpse of light down there. Dogs and cats don't see in color either, so their eyes are between those fish and us and hawks. All vestigial organs are either half-way mutations that lost their purpose or ones that don't yet have a purpose. Again, mind you, when I say "purpose", they are not yet meant to. They are simply changes that haven't hurt the creature's ability to live enough to keep it from breeding and passing on the trait. The inbetween stages, like stage three in Artto's image, or when a limb is developing into a wing. Are there any animals that have something like an exoskeleton developing into an internal skeleton? If this is true, we should have a lot of creatures in an inbetween stage that doesn't help them, because chances are most of them wouldn't be completely developed by now. Without it we couldn't sit or jump. I think it's an asset even for it's weakness. But the inbetween stage can't be too harmful, or else the organism won't continue developing it. Most of the inbetweens would probably be too harmful. Flying squirrels. Between an arm and a wing is an arm with skin flaps. Extend the "fingers" and change the shoulderblades just a little bit, and you have a full-on wing. As for skeletons, anything with scales has an "exoskeleton" of sorts- turtles have an outward bone structure. And remember, it's not that the bones are intentionally developing in the direction of a full skeletal system. The bone structures that exist do so because they did not hinder, or even helped, the creature in survival. It's not like creature A, which is Creature Z's great x 5,000,000 grandfather, is developing a knee or a heart with the intent of it becoming that later- If it allows the creature to survive, and it's subsequent changes allow those creatures to survive, it will. A blood pump is not a heart in the making, but it can become one by chance. It's a hard concept to explain. I'm not saying that knees are bad, but that in comparison to our other joints, it's a weak design. We don't consider it such because we are used to it. But it's really not as efficient as it could be, which is an example of a "negative" mutation, in that our knees are not as strong as our other joints. And see above- They are not predestined to change to what they will be. A blood pump doesn't start changing into a heart with the intent of becoming a heart. It just gets slightly more complex. and then slightly more complex. And them slightly different. And then slightly larger. and then slightly more complex, until eventually it is what we know as a heart. That wasn't it's original goal, but as you were hitting on, the changes allowed the creature to survive to pass on that trait of "sligthly more complex" or "slightly more whatever". It is difficult. You have a lot of complex developments, and they don't all start out with the intent of ending on some sort of complete part? You have many organisms that share different features like eyes, and lungs, and digestive features. Did they all come from the same common ancestor? I think 'not efficient' might be a better term. A negative mutation would be something like a hole in the heart, or a man born with no eyes. But then every add-on has to be positive or neutral. If a significant amount of the add-ons aren't, what does that say about evolution? The changes aren't that large, generally. They will be tiny changes, like in your heart scenario, thinner heart lining by a cell's width, if that. Or a decrease in the vision range of an eye by a tiny bit. The ones that AREN'T beneficial die. That's why we don't see them anymore. It's not that the evolution always makes them better- again, you're thinking in the opposite direction. Evolution means that the ones that don't die pass on the trait, probably because the surviving trait is "better" than the one that died off. You have to shift your emphasis here. It's like this- Birds like red berries. Almost all berries are red, very few are blue. The blue berries survive because they are not eaten. So, we see more blue berries. Eventually, when there is no more information for red berries, all that's left is blue berries. That is evolution. The berries don't change to not get eaten, they change because they WEREN'T eaten. Actually, there was something a lot like this cited in a lot of science textbooks about moths in a city. The moths were dark brown, and there was a rare trait that made a few of them white. The white ones were often eaten by animals because they were more visible on the dark brown trees. However, the city's pollution turned the trees white. So now, the brown moths were very visible and the white moths were camoflaged. The birds were able to see the dark moths and ate many of them, and the white moths bred. Their trait was passed on more often, and now the white moths are more common. That is evolution, on a fast scale. My point here is that every layer it takes to get to where we are now would have to be beneficial, or at least not kill the organism. If we found that the majority of the add-ons would've been harmful at one or more points, then evolution doesn't work. That's exactly my point. The mutations that were harmful killed the organism, so it didn't pass on it's trait. That's why we don't see it anymore, because it is dead. The mutations that DID work, worked. Those are the ones that survived.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:41 pm
Ok All, since this is a topic on evolution and if evolution is not real and is all mumbo jumbo then creationism must be real then I feel like this post is well within the topic....
Since creationism is the only other option besides evolution and vice versa, I want to go about this from a new angle. Lets hear some evidence for creationism without trying to disprove evolution. I want good hard evidence that would convince a good hard skeptic into believing in creationism.
This actually has a dual purpose, to look at this from a new angle, and also to see if creationists can give evn close to the amount of evidence given by evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:54 pm
Here's the idea. The missing link is still missing. If it's no longer missing, it's no longer the missing link, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:05 pm
Artto @Blue: On one hand you demand extraordinary detail from evolutionary theory, but on the other hand ID and creationism have no detail to them at all. Hard to find "cracks in a story" that basically consists of "God did it." Further more, if evolutionary theory was just a story, you would expect there to be more detail. However, since it's not, you can't just make stuff up (how hair evolved, for example), you have to have evidence for it. Oh and Quote: Besides, does our DNA even point to an original connection with reptiles and fish? Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree Yep. Biased, remember? I did warn you. Besides why's it so much to expect science to explain how things form as well as they can now diagram the parts? If parts like hair, eyes and organs form from minute mutations, then we should all sorts of animals with these various minute mutations. Maybe there'd be some missing links, but there should be enough puzzle pieces to figure out the process. There's some parts of the theory they put up as fact that they haven't seen yet. Otherwise it wouldn't be a complete theory. I don't see it. xp Where's the evidence of our DNA pointing to fish ancestry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:06 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Artto @Blue: On one hand you demand extraordinary detail from evolutionary theory, but on the other hand ID and creationism have no detail to them at all. Hard to find "cracks in a story" that basically consists of "God did it." Further more, if evolutionary theory was just a story, you would expect there to be more detail. However, since it's not, you can't just make stuff up (how hair evolved, for example), you have to have evidence for it. Oh and Quote: Besides, does our DNA even point to an original connection with reptiles and fish? Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree Yep. Biased, remember? I did warn you. Besides why's it so much to expect science to explain how things form as well as they can now diagram the parts? If parts like hair, eyes and organs form from minute mutations, then we should all sorts of animals with these various minute mutations. Maybe there'd be some missing links, but there should be enough puzzle pieces to figure out the process. There's some parts of the theory they put up as fact that they haven't seen yet. Otherwise it wouldn't be a complete theory. I don't see it. xp Where's the evidence of our DNA pointing to fish ancestry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:07 pm
Captain_Shinzo I would also like to point out that we are all trying to discuss evolution in a debate and only talking of one side.
During the debate of evolution, the sides go as shown:
Possibility of Evolution being real > Possibility of it being fake
The only evidence supporting the side that evolution could just be another fake theory is the parts where not enough is known about evolution.
If we filled in those little cracks and holes, then where might the argument stand?
Needless to say, I see why we shouldn't believe in evolution when there is more evidence supporting it than denying it. Can you list those evidences, please? And what if those cracks show it to be impossible, like the steps leading up to organ formation would've been fatal to the organism they developed in. What's that mean? Link to read if you like (about evidence against evolution), but don't get mad at me if it doesn't meet standards. I just skimmed it so I don't know how well it presents it's points or if it's BS. http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:12 pm
Emperor Angelo XXV xxEternallyBluexx Artto @Blue: On one hand you demand extraordinary detail from evolutionary theory, but on the other hand ID and creationism have no detail to them at all. Hard to find "cracks in a story" that basically consists of "God did it." Further more, if evolutionary theory was just a story, you would expect there to be more detail. However, since it's not, you can't just make stuff up (how hair evolved, for example), you have to have evidence for it. Oh and Quote: Besides, does our DNA even point to an original connection with reptiles and fish? Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree Yep. Biased, remember? I did warn you. Besides why's it so much to expect science to explain how things form as well as they can now diagram the parts? If parts like hair, eyes and organs form from minute mutations, then we should all sorts of animals with these various minute mutations. Maybe there'd be some missing links, but there should be enough puzzle pieces to figure out the process. There's some parts of the theory they put up as fact that they haven't seen yet. Otherwise it wouldn't be a complete theory. I don't see it. xp Where's the evidence of our DNA pointing to fish ancestry?
A law is definite and can't be change like Newton's Laws of Motions.
If evolution isn't completely proven yet, that doesn't make it a Scientific Law.
However, Scientific Theories shouldn't be ignored.
They aren't called SCIENTIFIC Theories for nothing.
When force was still being researched, it would have been considered the Theory of Force as the unfinished discovery of motion would be called Newton's Theory of Motion.
Furthermore, Scientific Theories exist for a reason.
They aren't something you just pull out your rectum and see what it is.
They are something that is possible to be from first glance and tested to be checked for probability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:15 pm
Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV xxEternallyBluexx Artto @Blue: On one hand you demand extraordinary detail from evolutionary theory, but on the other hand ID and creationism have no detail to them at all. Hard to find "cracks in a story" that basically consists of "God did it." Further more, if evolutionary theory was just a story, you would expect there to be more detail. However, since it's not, you can't just make stuff up (how hair evolved, for example), you have to have evidence for it. Oh and Quote: Besides, does our DNA even point to an original connection with reptiles and fish? Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree Yep. Biased, remember? I did warn you. Besides why's it so much to expect science to explain how things form as well as they can now diagram the parts? If parts like hair, eyes and organs form from minute mutations, then we should all sorts of animals with these various minute mutations. Maybe there'd be some missing links, but there should be enough puzzle pieces to figure out the process. There's some parts of the theory they put up as fact that they haven't seen yet. Otherwise it wouldn't be a complete theory. I don't see it. xp Where's the evidence of our DNA pointing to fish ancestry?
A law is definite and can't be change like Newton's Laws of Motions.
If evolution isn't completely proven yet, that doesn't make it a Scientific Law.
However, Scientific Theories shouldn't be ignored.
They aren't called SCIENTIFIC Theories for nothing.
When force was still being researched, it would have been considered the Theory of Force as the unfinished discovery of motion would be called Newton's Theory of Motion.
Furthermore, Scientific Theories exist for a reason.
They aren't something you just pull out your rectum and see what it is.
They are something that is possible to be from first glance and tested to be checked for probability.I know that. Of course, we have theories, so that we can test stuff out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:19 pm
xxEternallyBluexx I don't see it. xp Where's the evidence of our DNA pointing to fish ancestry? http://www.jgi.doe.gov/News/news_7_25_02.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/26/us/fish-genes-aid-human-discoveries.html http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/news/2000/may3/fish-53.html Basically we share a lot of our DNA with fish, since we are both vertebrates. xxEternallyBluexx And what if those cracks show it to be impossible, like the steps leading up to organ formation would've been fatal to the organism they developed in. What's that mean? Care to give an example? Quote: There's some parts of the theory they put up as fact that they haven't seen yet. Otherwise it wouldn't be a complete theory. Example, please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:21 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo I would also like to point out that we are all trying to discuss evolution in a debate and only talking of one side.
During the debate of evolution, the sides go as shown:
Possibility of Evolution being real > Possibility of it being fake
The only evidence supporting the side that evolution could just be another fake theory is the parts where not enough is known about evolution.
If we filled in those little cracks and holes, then where might the argument stand?
Needless to say, I see why we shouldn't believe in evolution when there is more evidence supporting it than denying it. Can you list those evidences, please? And what if those cracks show it to be impossible, like the steps leading up to organ formation would've been fatal to the organism they developed in. What's that mean? Link to read if you like (about evidence against evolution), but don't get mad at me if it doesn't meet standards. I just skimmed it so I don't know how well it presents it's points or if it's BS. http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Those cracks, as I said, are missing pieces to a puzzle if they aren't discovered. If they are impossible, than they would be thrown away now. However, they must have some possibility to be able to come up with a way of being possible.
I will say this, Scientific Theories can be disproven.
That doesn't mean they are gradually stupid, however. Scientific Theories are sensible.
For the evidence AGAINST evolution, I don't know completely enough about evolution to give you that. I know the basics and scientific terms but not the full, gradual process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:23 pm
Emperor Angelo XXV Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV xxEternallyBluexx Artto @Blue: On one hand you demand extraordinary detail from evolutionary theory, but on the other hand ID and creationism have no detail to them at all. Hard to find "cracks in a story" that basically consists of "God did it." Further more, if evolutionary theory was just a story, you would expect there to be more detail. However, since it's not, you can't just make stuff up (how hair evolved, for example), you have to have evidence for it. Oh and Quote: Besides, does our DNA even point to an original connection with reptiles and fish? Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree Yep. Biased, remember? I did warn you. Besides why's it so much to expect science to explain how things form as well as they can now diagram the parts? If parts like hair, eyes and organs form from minute mutations, then we should all sorts of animals with these various minute mutations. Maybe there'd be some missing links, but there should be enough puzzle pieces to figure out the process. There's some parts of the theory they put up as fact that they haven't seen yet. Otherwise it wouldn't be a complete theory. I don't see it. xp Where's the evidence of our DNA pointing to fish ancestry?
A law is definite and can't be change like Newton's Laws of Motions.
If evolution isn't completely proven yet, that doesn't make it a Scientific Law.
However, Scientific Theories shouldn't be ignored.
They aren't called SCIENTIFIC Theories for nothing.
When force was still being researched, it would have been considered the Theory of Force as the unfinished discovery of motion would be called Newton's Theory of Motion.
Furthermore, Scientific Theories exist for a reason.
They aren't something you just pull out your rectum and see what it is.
They are something that is possible to be from first glance and tested to be checked for probability.I know that. Of course, we have theories, so that we can test stuff out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:38 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo I would also like to point out that we are all trying to discuss evolution in a debate and only talking of one side.
During the debate of evolution, the sides go as shown:
Possibility of Evolution being real > Possibility of it being fake
The only evidence supporting the side that evolution could just be another fake theory is the parts where not enough is known about evolution.
If we filled in those little cracks and holes, then where might the argument stand?
Needless to say, I see why we shouldn't believe in evolution when there is more evidence supporting it than denying it. Link to read if you like (about evidence against evolution), but don't get mad at me if it doesn't meet standards. I just skimmed it so I don't know how well it presents it's points or if it's BS. http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Argument 1: Evolution is not happening now.
No s**t. Evolution is a slow gradual process. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
However, you can't compare this to Santa Claus because Santa isn't scientifically possible at all.
Argument 2: Evolution never happened in the past.
How does evolution being too slow to see evidence of it not happening?
Argument 3: The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics
This is pretty much a statement.
In the paragraph, the person said that
A.) We have proof of Evolution which we don't.
B.) That the Creator (Not surprised...) changed the genetic code to make it seem like evolution existed or some kind of wakadoo belief.
I will say that the author is correct in stating that this creator could have changed the code. However, if your going to do that then you might as well do useful stuff too like curing disease and saving lives.
Argument 4: Evolution Could Never Happen at All
After saying that, the author goes on to say that Scientific Process is bunk.
I lost interest after that. He also continued to say some other junk he didn't know what he/she was talking about.
PROBABLY because he was stealing this from the book Intelligent Design possibly?
Argument 5: Evolution is religion.
How does this disprove evolution?
Another line from the book Intelligent Design?
We proved that just having faith in something doesn't make it religion. If this was the case, then Atheism is a religion and we all know religious folk are arguing against this.
The guy continues to say that evolution is not Science but that is bull.
I checked the link, and it was full of things stolen from the Intelligent Design book and other mumbo-jumbo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
