 |
| |
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
CyberShy:
quote:
but now I have to rebute it, I guess. hmmmmmmmmm.
your 'take the time' example which saves much time in the end expects that the dices ignore everytime they didn't roll 6. In that case 6000000 rolls will conclude indeed in 1000000 6's, 1000000 5's....... etc. etc. etc. (might be one more or less )
But what if we say for example that every time you trow a 5 you have to start all over............ ? Like an organism which mutates very wrong has no change to survive (natural selection) |
If you DID have to start all over again after every bad mutation, then that would be a huge problem: evolution would be impossible.
But you don't. Even if a creature gets a bad mutation and dies, it will usually have brothers and sisters who didn't get the mutation. And there might be cousins and other more distant relatives to carry on. Each will have inherited the good mutations from earlier generations, and the bad ones will have died out.
Furthermore, if the creature reproduces sexually, there will be combinations of genes. If two separate creatures of the same species each gets a good mutation, they might meet and breed, and some of their offspring might inherit both. On average, these will prevail over those which lack those traits.
quote:
As for Noah's Ark: people are always finding Noah's Ark on Ararat, and it's always just another rock formation.
it is ?
I'm sure that hapened many times indeed. But wood is wood. |
There are wooden shacks on Ararat. People carry wood up there to build shelters. Ironically, a "piece of the Ark" could be a piece of a shelter built by an earlier expedition to find the Ark.
quote:
last time I checked the evolution theory teached us that both apes and and humans share the same precessors. But pherhaps the evolution theory has evolved again last week. |
MODERN apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor. But that ancestor would still be an "ape".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
As I said, willful ignorance...
We'd have better luck arguing with a brick wall, folks. These guys are just flat-out ignoring what we're saying.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Of course I've heard about the aquatic simian theory! It's driving anthropologists nuts! Why do you think I mentioned it? |
I don't know, but I'm guessing that it was some sort of failed attempt at baiting me into something.
quote:
This is just one point why the theory of evolution is just a "theory". |
Erm... you've been trying to prove that the "Theory of Evolution" is a theory? I have some bad news for you....
quote:
You evolutionists go round and round, trying to find out where did man come from... You speculate, and speculate
|
Well that is the idea of science, a search for answers.
quote:
but still you don't want to see how creationists use science to rebut your theories |
What do you mean by 'rebut'? disproving an opposing theory does not make yours correct - and if you use science to disprove it, that shows the merit of science, doesn't it?
quote:
rejecting absolutely any (suggestion) that Life could have been created by a God.. |
First of all - the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.
And, It's not that it's impossible - it's just that no one ever gives any scientific theory or evidence behind it, and just says "it's the way it is". It's deffinately not the most plausible theory - not that it matters anyways, since most people who believe in it generally consider it to be an absolute and undeniable fact of the universe which is not open to questioning.
I get the feeling that you are saying science is wrong because it does not share the same narrow and close mindness that (for lack of a better term) your beliefs hold.
And that for some reason you have the idea that the only thing required to prove your theory is to disprove the opposing theory - that most certainly is not the case. I'll make an example of this flawed logic for you: There are two men; One man believes potatoes to be stones, the other believes them to be fruit. The man who believes potatoes to be fruit splits one open and proves that they are not stones. Does this make potatoes a fruit?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
The thought I had that lead me to accept that as, Guynemer said, prior untested mutations had occured in those experiments was: What causes changes in the bio-diversity of a species?
I could only come up with two factors - mutations within a species can increase it, natural selection can decrease. If you prove natural selection, which many experiments do, then you have to have a counter mechanism to prevent irrevocable specialisation.
Last edited by Dauphin on 15-01-2002 at 02:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
 |
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
I don't know, but I'm guessing that it was some sort of failed attempt at baiting me into something. |
I'm not insulting you in any way; at least I don't intent to.
quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
Erm... you've been trying to prove that the "Theory of Evolution" is a theory? I have some bad news for you.... |
Osweld, no you don't... 
quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
Well that is the idea of science, a search for answers. |
Wich I completely agree! BTW, did you start searching for answers already? 
quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
What do you mean by 'rebut'? disproving an opposing theory does not make yours correct - and if you use science to disprove it, that shows the merit of science, doesn't it? |
Absolutely! Where do you think I get my arguments? It's really exaustive to post in threads like these. And I have self-esteem, you know? I wouldn't argue a thing if I didn't have any proof of what I say.
quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
First of all - the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.
And, It's not that it's impossible - it's just that no one ever gives any scientific theory or evidence behind it, and just says "it's the way it is". It's deffinately not the most plausible theory - not that it matters anyways, since most people who believe in it generally consider it to be an absolute and undeniable fact of the universe which is not open to questioning. |
Osweld, let me tell you something. There are several people who do consider life began with a sparkle in an organic soup, and that an amoeba was suddenly formed, and that millions of years later, man appeared. It's against this what I've been talking about. I studied what could be needed in order to that amoeba to appear, and let me tell you: that's impossible. And that's why there hasn't been any successful experiment on that field.
quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
I get the feeling that you are saying science is wrong because it does not share the same narrow and close mindness that (for lack of a better term) your beliefs hold.
And that for some reason you have the idea that the only thing required to prove your theory is to disprove the opposing theory - that most certainly is not the case. I'll make an example of this flawed logic for you: There are two men; One man believes potatoes to be stones, the other believes them to be fruit. The man who believes potatoes to be fruit splits one open and proves that they are not stones. Does this make potatoes a fruit? |
Nice example of the fruit, but I'm always open minded about scientific facts. And the theory of evolution is waaaay too far away to stop being a theory. That's what I (and others) have been talking about in this thread.
I hope I have cleared you oppinion about me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
AAAARRRGH
I have the impression that a lot of people here don't have the faintest idea of what evolution is, whether or not they believe in it.
What Evolution Isn't:
"Humans evolved from chimpanzees/monkeys."
None of todays species ever, EVER evolved from each other. They all are evolved from common ancestors.
"Early giraffes strained their necks in reaching for the trees." OR
"People in hotter countries are darker because they got tanned so much."
and my favorite:
"If you look at the sun too much, your eyes will mutate "
Straining your neck will make it longer. Sitting under the sun will tan you. Looking at the sun will burn your eyes.
However, NONE of these features are EVER passed to your offspring, because none of them has affected your GENES. Thus these are not part of evolution.
People in hotter countries are darker, and giraffes have longer necks for a different reason.
"Evolution is just a theory."
Great, so is gravity. Your point being?
"Darwin himself recanted evolution."
Mmm, firstly, that isn't true.
Secondly, even if that were, it wouldn't matter a single bit to modern science.
"A lot of PhD's are against evolution."
Even more PhD's are for evolution. A lot lot more.
"Evolution is a strive for perfection. Thus, if evolution is true, all organisms will be perfectly formed organisms, like human beings. There won't be flatworms or slugs or rhesus monkeys."
Grrrrr! Evolution isn't a strive for 'perfection'. Evolution is adapting to whatever the environment offers. If the environment doesn't call for much improvement on the anatomy of the slug, then it will remain a slug for the next billion years. If the environment doesn't call for the rhesus monkey population to evolve that much intelligence, then it won't.
In fact, if a nuclear war suddenly happened (or some other cataclysmic event) and the result is an environment that is so dangerous that curiosity, intelligence and inquisitiveness is punished by death, then whatever human populations remain will evolve stupidity to fit the environment.
This is why there are monkeys, chimps and people in this world. They lived in different habitats and evolved to fit them.
Now, finally, what evolution is:
Firstly, beneficial mutation. Mutation, by the way, is a change in genes. Because mutation is totally random, most of the time it will be horrid. However, sometimes, it will be good. This, as creationists love to point out, is very very very rare. Unfortunately for them, it is not as rare as they want it to be.
Secondly, natural selection. Because mutation creates variation, the tough, demanding environment will trim off the less adaptable traits. Thus, the entire genetic makeup of the population will slowly shift, in the direction of what the environment demands. This is not only reasonable, there is absolutely no reason why this wouldn't happen.
That's all there is to it. A beneficial mutation step which is not as rare as you think, and the natural selection step which is totally inevitable.
There are no neck-stretching exercises for giraffes involved. That is a misconception commonly used by creationists to attack "evolution".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
|
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Osweld, let me tell you something. There are several people who do consider life began with a sparkle in an organic soup, and that an amoeba was suddenly formed, and that millions of years later, man appeared. It's against this what I've been talking about. I studied what could be needed in order to that amoeba to appear, and let me tell you: that's impossible. And that's why there hasn't been any successful experiment on that field. |
I think that all of the theories on the origin of life or the universe are impossible. Creationism for example: So you have a god, who created everything, that's nice and simple and explains everything... except from where this god came from, what it is, and how it came to be. Thus you are still left with the same essential question. Besides, most of the theories are essentially the same, they all revolve around some sort of amazingly improbable or miraculous event happening.
Unless we are talking about life on earth, in specific. In which case, I don't think it really matters. Either the life developed here, or it developed somewhere else and came here - you are left with the same essential question, either way.
I don't think it's impossible that life was created out of the matter of the universe, rather then put together by... er... what exactly could put it together with out being alive itself? Of course, that is no more of a paradox then the question of how the universe (and thus the matter required for spontaneous creation of life) was created in the first place.
quote:
I hope I have cleared you oppinion about me. |
Sorry, like I said earlier I haven't been following this thread... and I made assumptions about your argument that don't seem to be true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Mmm i think (but i'm not sure about this) that several million years ago, the jungles of Central Africa cleared due to climatic changes. The apes in that area were therefore unexpectantly dumped into the savannah, a totally new environment that they weren't evolved to fit in.
The evolutionary pressure from the environment was huge since apes can't run very fast (and indeed human beings are among the slowest large animals on the ground.)
Other animals probably took a different route. The earliest human beings had features that were, by luck, already in the 'direction' of the evolution of intelligence. For example:
- Apes, in the jungle, were already capable of limited upright movement. This freed up the forelimbs and thus hands.
- The fingers of primates are very well developed for grasping branches. On the savannahs, there were no branches to grasp. Thus human beings learnt to manipulate other objects with their agile fingers.
(Animals which were already on the savannah, on the other hand, had hooves/paws on their forelimbs because they had long ago evolved to move on the savannahs. It was the most efficient way to run, but it wasn't conducive to using tools.)
Tool manipulation is obviously very intelligence-intensive, and the lives of the earliest humans depended on these tools, because every part of their body was evolved for the jungle, not the savannah. Thus the pressure to evolve intelligence.
Now i'm not totally sure about this but this is my understanding.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
What Evolution Isn't:
"Humans evolved from chimpanzees/monkeys."
None of todays species ever, EVER evolved from each other. They all are evolved from common ancestors. |
Jack was one evolutionist who claimed with quite certainty that above. Not my fault. 
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
"Early giraffes strained their necks in reaching for the trees." OR
"People in hotter countries are darker because they got tanned so much."
and my favorite:
"If you look at the sun too much, your eyes will mutate"
Straining your neck will make it longer. Sitting under the sun will tan you. Looking at the sun will burn your eyes.
However, NONE of these features are EVER passed to your offspring, because none of them has affected your GENES. Thus these are not part of evolution.
People in hotter countries are darker, and giraffes have longer necks for a different reason. |
Of course, we all would like to know why, because if butterflies can change their wings colours, why couldn't humans?
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
"Evolution is just a theory."
Great, so is gravity. Your point being? |
It needs scientific evidence, with universal applyance, to start being a fact. The Theory of Gravity only needs to be "seen" to stop being called a theory. Although I don't find any reason to still call theory to Newton's gravity theory, I do on the theory of evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
"Evolution is a strive for perfection. Thus, if evolution is true, all organisms will be perfectly formed organisms, like human beings. There won't be flatworms or slugs or rhesus monkeys."
Grrrrr! Evolution isn't a strive for 'perfection'. Evolution is adapting to whatever the environment offers. If the environment doesn't call for much improvement on the anatomy of the slug, then it will remain a slug for the next billion years. If the environment doesn't call for the rhesus monkey population to evolve that much intelligence, then it won't. |
The problem with this is that you assume that the flora is immutable (when you should be the first to say that a local flora can be severely replaced just by ONE season weather conditions), and that there is no fauna migration, when we now know that there are birds who flight over 2000 miles in a specific season. I also wonder who do they know about "greener pastures" so far away, but I don't want to be accused of changing the subject.
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
That's all there is to it. A beneficial mutation step which is not as rare as you think, and the natural selection step which is totally inevitable. |
As I stated before, you strictly presume that there was no flora development or change. Just let me remind you that the first dinossaurs to fade away were the herbivores, and the carnivores followed them. Now you tell me where's that beneficial mutation, or a natural selection step.
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
There are no neck-stretching exercises for giraffes involved. That is a misconception commonly used by creationists to attack "evolution". |
No, it was one of the first evolutionist concept about evolution. (XIX century to be honest)
Pretty ridiculous, huh?
But since that there are several evolutionist factions (ie: those who say man evolved from simians, like Jack the bodiless, and those evolutionists like yourself who don't agree), I really don't give a damn...
Last edited by Zealot on 15-01-2002 at 05:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joe R. Golowka
|
 |
Earth, Sol System, Milky Way
Jul 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
It needs scientific evidence, with universal applyance, to start being a fact. The Theory of Gravity only needs to be "seen" to stop being called a theory. Although I don't find any reason to still call theory to Newton's gravity theory, I do on the theory of evolution. |
This proves you don't have a clue what your'e talking about and don't understand science. A scientific theory is one that has a signifigant amount of evidence backing it up, it's not a "theory" in the sense of just being a guess. Like gravity, evolution has been observed. The theory of evolution has much more evidence supporting it then Newton's Theory of Gravity. Newton's theory was disproven almost a century ago.
quote:
But since that there are several evolutionist factions (ie: those who say man evolved from simians, like Jack the bodiless, and those evolutionists like yourself who don't agree), I really don't give a damn... |
More proof that you don't understand science, biology or evolution. You should really stop attacking strawmen. There are no "evolutionists." That's a nonsense word made up by creationists. There are people who believe in the established theories of biology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Of course, we all would like to know why, because if butterflies can change their wings colours, why couldn't humans? |
what?!
what does that have to do with mutation?!
quote:
It needs scientific evidence, with universal applyance, to start being a fact. The Theory of Gravity only needs to be "seen" to stop being called a theory. Although I don't find any reason to still call theory to Newton's gravity theory, I do on the theory of evolution. |
They call it a theory because it's not universally proven. No theory has enough evidence to ensure 'universal appliance'. You notice that human beings haven't observed every single instance of gravity, yet they conclude gravity is true because there is more evidence for it than against it. Same goes for evolution.
quote:
The problem with this is that you assume that the flora is immutable (when you should be the first to say that a local flora can be severely replaced just by ONE season weather conditions), and that there is no fauna migration, when we now know that there are birds who flight over 2000 miles in a specific season. I also wonder who do they know about "greener pastures" so far away, but I don't want to be accused of changing the subject. |
what?
I was talking about adapting to specific environments...
quote:
As I stated before, you strictly presume that there was no flora development or change. Just let me remind you that the first dinossaurs to fade away were the herbivores, and the carnivores followed them. Now you tell me where's that beneficial mutation, or a natural selection step. |
what what what?????
are you even replying to my points?
btw, the extinction of the dinosaurs was because of a cataclysmic event, probably a meteor or intense volcanic activity or both, which dinosaurs simply couldn't adapt to - there wasn't enough time to produce enough beneficial mutations so that the dinosaurs could survive.
quote:
No, it was one of the first evolutionist concept about evolution. (XIX century to be honest)
Pretty ridiculous, huh? |
finally something we agree on. It is rather ridiculous. That's why it's not part of modern evolutionist theory.
quote:
But since that there are several evolutionist factions (ie: those who say man evolved from simians, like Jack the bodiless, and those evolutionists like yourself who don't agree), I really don't give a damn... |
note that you are arguing not against our opinions, but against a theory. Some of us might get the theory wrong, but the basics of the theory itself is there. and that's what you're arguing against.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tolls
"I have never mentioned intermediates on Apolyton yet a certain individual know how much I know of this. Is he a psychic or a prophet or a mindreader or just have an attitude? "
I shall quote you:
"Anyways there are millions of focciles and many have been found. Mammals, insects, etc. But where are the intermediates? None has been found."
I was replying to this comment...there are "intermediates".
You're pulling tricks here Tolls. IIRC the last line was my 2nd comment on intermediates. The 1st line one you didnt want to answer and was my 1st comment.
[QUOTE]ICR's credentials are nice, but how many of them have published creationist articles in peer reviewed literature? |
Let me guess: 1? (se below)
I'm sure there are few, but that's no big surprise. Why would evolutionist magazines bring in something that oppose their views. Be rational.
They have nice credentials, for instance:
...and Ph.D. in Geology (Paleontology) from Harvard University where Stephen J. Gould was his principal advisor. Dr. Wise has published in the Journal of Paleobiology, received the Certificate of Distinction in Teaching two years in a row from the Harvard-Danforth Center for Teaching and Learning, Harvard University, and is a member of the National Center for Science Education and the Paleontological Society.
Now to some of you 'evolutionists' in here Stephen J. Gould most be a moron advising a creationist scientist cos creationism isn't science. And as some of you claim creationists have no education.
Harvard University must stink big time.
PS I said "I rest my case" in a former post. Why won't you just leave it at that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Yes, we do. There are thousands of transitional fossils throughout the fossil record. Denying their existence won't make them go away. The creationist view is "the Bible is the Word of God, therefore Genesis is true, therefore there cannot be any tansitional fossils, therefore there ARE no transitional fossils". Dogmatic thinking at its finest. |
I didnt bring up the bible. And is that the creationist view? Their is a difference of opinion on the transitional fossiles. Some actually think those found are not transitional.
quote:
"Creation scientists" are notorious for inventing degrees. Having been caught out so many times, some have decided to study for real degrees, and a few have made it. But nobody has ever become a creationist by being convinced by genuine scientific evidence for it (because there isn't any). Without exception, every "creation scientist" is a religious fundamentalist who denies scientific knowledge which contradicts his religious beliefs: it's just that some have learned a bit of genuine science (usually unrelated to biology). |
Stephen J. Gould is made a moron again. See my other post.
quote:
Creatures evolve to adapt to their environment. If the environment changes, the fly will change. |
We just know that. No experiments needed. Dogma at it's finest.
quote:
To refute the claim that "there are no beneficial mutations", it is only necessary to produce examples of beneficial mutations. This has been done, therefore the claim is FALSE. End of argument. |
Yeah, and turn a blind eye to the ones that fail and they are many, but who cares, right? We must keep our dogmas!
quote:
You have stated that "We don't see transitional fossils". Again, this claim is FALSE. |
So claiming something is false makes you right without providing any evidence?
quote:
Correction: You have pointed out a vast difference of opinion on evolution theory between religious fundamentalists and people in this thread.
You lose your case.  |
So I'm a religious fundamentalist? Where did I state that? Again you state things you're not sure of - have not any evidence of. Seems to me you're the big 'dogmatist' in here.
PS I rested my case above so just leave it at that. It's getting tiresome answering such as "this is false, this is right" and providing no more. Also the same arguments keep repeating. It's not gonna become true just because you repeat it or is this an attempt of indoctrination.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-01-2002 22:09
|