Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Evolution is a fact!
Then your saying that Satan provides for our gas heating? So Satan is providing warmth for all the cold masses.
> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
> @Ehawk
1: Your explanation of the wing's evolution is preposterous. Remember, until the wing fully materialized, you say that the animal essentially had tiny fins flapping around uselessly. How would that creature survive in the world? Two useless flapping appendages would be extra targets for vulnerability, and they would expend needed energy uselessly, requiring the animal to eat more often with little to gain for the investment. How would that creature ever survive against competitors who, in all other areas, were their equal?
This only further proves my point: If evolution as we understand it were correct, it would require these creatures to have intermediary phases. Those intermediary phases are usually more vulnerable than creatures not undertaking the evolutionary process for the very reason of the trait trying to be developed.
2: Your fossilization argument is wrong. Fossils only require that bones be preserved. How many animals can you name (other than piranhas) that eat bones?
to answer your first response:
Just because an animal is a little more vulnerable doesnt mean it absolutely cant survive. 
look at caterpillars, they are super vulnerable, yet we see them everywhere. Use your noggin.
Evolution is the logical conclusion. Just use logic. Please.
> Jack Oniell wrote:
>2. the starting point for evolution begins w/ , nothingness exploding into everything that now is through billions of years. and that is just supposition, theory or belief (what ever u want to call it, its all the same). It has never been seen by anyone so it CANNOT BE A FACT
Ok you're combining three separate theories there junior.
1) Big Bang theory - deals with the initial creation of the universe, no bearing on evolution
2) Abiogenesis - deals with the initial creation of life from non-living matter, no bearing on evolution
3) Evolution - deals with the changing of existing life through mutation and natural selection over generations
How the universe began and where life comes from are irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
As for it having never been seen we see it every day, dogs. Dog breeds are based on controlled evolution where animals with desirable traits are made to breed to generate a new kind of dog.
> Jack Oniell wrote:
>3. and as far as fossils go, each animal has pretty much the same types of bones as humans (not animals). e.g. hip bones , shoulder bones, etc. they all do the same function which is why they all look half-way alike, not because were all related.
Yeah except for birds, fish, snakes, organisms with no skeletal structure, organisms with an exoskeletal structure, and on and on and on.
Besides fossils aren't used to prove evolution, that's what DNA is for, fossils are used as a visual aid in demonstrating the development from 1 species to another. Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalis, Cro Magnon Man, etc. don't prove we evolved from simians they show the possible progression. Specific DNA commonalities with Chimps, Gorillas, and other primates show that we share common ancestry.
Let me simplify it:
A portion of your DNA is specific to you
If someone has certain commonalities in their DNA it shows they're related.
If blood is found to have certain commonalities in DNA it shows they're human.
DNA can only be passed, one to another, through offspring if you share common DNA with someone you have some relation to them, the more in common that closer the relation. We have common DNA with every living thing on the planet, from amoebas to elephants. This shows that somewhere along the line we have a common relative.
EDIT: For those arguing the half-wing thing I direct you to the flying squirrel.
Abiogenesis cannot be duplicated by any physical test
"Abiogenesis cannot be duplicated by any physical test"
True, however as I said it doesn't matter if life on earth came from moldy space cheese as far as the theory of evoution is concerned.
And last I checked we couldn't duplicate planet or star formation either so one must wonder at your point.
and as to that last point, we are equally unable to duplicate Divine Creation. By your argument you prove your entire position untenable.
^ Logically invalid counter argument.
That said, DPS makes a fine counter point. Abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution. The only thing Abiogenesis is relevant for is settling the question of whether life first emerged from divine planning or natural processes. Right now we haven't been able to create life without reproduction or engineering, but I will put my gamble in with naturalism because the defenses of religion have been growing narrower and narrower and gradually replaced by natural explanations.
I thought we stopped arguing and all accepted evolution once television exposed us to such pre-evolved-man relics as Bill Mahr and Michael Moore?
There is evolution, there is not, however, enough proof for the time of when it started.
That's just my opinion...
And agreed with Ehawk:
If they don't teach it in the US, they should.
Aparently in some countries they teach it in elementary schools.. however, since 1997 i still can't totaly understand what evolution is, what we have evolved from and what we will evolve in...
Sincerely I am afraid concerning this matter...
Any thoughts about "what we will evolve in..."?
It is a fact we are evolving, that is all i can say.
EDIT:
I am only replying to the first few posts in this thread and the topic.
Rawrr,
We aren't "evolving in to" anything. Evolution isn't like a linear line of grades. A species with superior intellect and strength could get pwned, or prove to be unfit, in a particular environment. For the sake of argument, lets assume the earth suddenly became a huge ocean with -200 degree F weather. Our "superior" species would be unable to adapt and would become extinct, but some ocean species would continue, and perhaps benefit, under this new environment - their genes would be passed on because natural selection favored them.
That would asume that the mankind has reached its top? But animals can probably go on evolving again...?
But if you put it like that, maybe someday the mankind will be fishpeople 
...
r3quim wrote,
"This only further proves my point: If evolution as we understand it were correct, it would require these creatures to have intermediary phases. Those intermediary phases are usually more vulnerable than creatures not undertaking the evolutionary process for the very reason of the trait trying to be developed."
According to the theory of evolution, every species is always in an intermediary phase.
funny read:
http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html
"It is a fact we are evolving, that is all i can say."
Actually one could argue, and I often do, that Homo Sapiens have stopped evolving. Not because we've reached the pinnacle of evolution (no such pinnacle exists) but becasue our advancements in technology and medicine have eliminated the key component of natural selection. People who would have died 100 years ago are not only surviving but thriving, so we no longer have traits that are perhaps less beneficial to surviving and adapting to our environment dying out.
> r3quim wrote:
> to answer your first response:
Just because an animal is a little more vulnerable doesnt mean it absolutely cant survive. look at caterpillars, they are super vulnerable, yet we see them everywhere. Use your noggin.
1: Your theory violates the key principle of natural selection: that those with good traits will survive.
2: The caterpillar isn't as vulnerable as you think. For one, caterpillars share colors similar to their surroundings, allowing enough to survive in order to reproduce. In its butterfly form, many butterflies have bright colors which are indicators to other species that they are poisonous (generally a lie). This is only the basic stuff I can pull out... obviously, I'm not a biologist, so I can't fully detail a caterpillar's biology... (but neither can you)
3: Remember, evolution wouldn't just require the creature to survive. It would require the creature to prove they're always better than the alternative. All other things being equal, if you had two creatures with all the same characteristics except that one was undergoing evolution and temporarily had some useless appendage, predators would generally target the creature that was most vulnerable. That useless appendage would probably make the creature slightly slower... but slightly slower is enough... predators don't try to kill the fastest creature in a herd, do they?
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> r3quim wrote,
"This only further proves my point: If evolution as we understand it were correct, it would require these creatures to have intermediary phases. Those intermediary phases are usually more vulnerable than creatures not undertaking the evolutionary process for the very reason of the trait trying to be developed."
According to the theory of evolution, every species is always in an intermediary phase.
Agreed. However, I'm making a distinction between small-scale evolutionary upgrades (a different color which helps an animal survive) and revolutionary leaps in evolution (the creation of a wing). My argument is that the intermediate phase for creatures undergoing revolutionary leaps requires a phase of vulnerability in those creatures to develop the final desired form. Most species are probably undergoing the first type of evolution, augmenting muscles, mental capacity, color, or other small traits. These generally don't require more than a few genetic changes to happen, so evolution can take care of it quickly.
> Petrolstone wrote:
> Meatball sandwiches are delicious.
agreed. probably the most factual thing i've seen on this thread. 
I don't understand what evolution has to do with whether we got here from intelligent design or by other means. This isn't a religeous debate, it's a biological one.
However, speaking as a Christian, evolution is fact. To deny that is akin to denying the sun is the center of the solar system or the earth is round. Speak with any theologian that knows his biology and he'll tell you pretty much the same.
But we all came from a single celled organism in the sea that eventually crawled onto land then eventually became a primate then eventually formed the species we are today? That is not a fact. I'm not debating whether it's true or not, so don't bother responding with DNA studies and quotes from Dawkins. Frankly, that doesn't interest me. Not saying it's wrong, just saying I don't care. The same way I'm not going to defend my religion to anyone. If you don't believe, fine. Let's just agree to dissagree.
If you have a herd of antelope and half have colorful stripes to attract a mate, then it is more likely they will produce more offspring than the non-colorful ones and the amount non-colorful ones will dwindle because they will be selected to mate with less often, eventually causing the species to "evolve" to the point where they are all colorful. I mean, that's just common sense.
However, if the lions can more easily spot the colorful antelope (I have no idea weather they are colorblind or not and am frankly to lazy to look it up so for the sake of argument, we'll assume they can see color on the same level as a human.) then it stands to good reason the colorful antelope will be eaten more frequently and the non-colorful antelope will be the more dominant trait because they will live longer to procreate more. Again, common sense.
As to how we got here? Haven't we been asking that question since the dawn of time? Don't think science or religion is gonna be able to provide conclusive clinical proof on that one, so why fight over it?
--VikingKing
(P.S. Thanks for listening to me up on my soap box. : ) I hope no one was too offended. Just be open minded and respond back courteously and maybe we can have fun talking about this for a change.)
Evolution is a fact !! for shure m8
and religion and god creating as more like a funny joke..
I mean come on.. its a entire book out dated for hundreds of years about the same thing as the top question..
'who comes first the chicken or the egg..'
god is a fake.. a 3de degree wizard at the most
Dude: God made the universe!
Secular Humanist: OMG what a noob!
Dude: Why, what's wrong with acknowledging God made the universe?
SH: I can't believe you ignore all the data of a thousand years to read a book of fairy tales
Dude: But it all hangs together so awesomely
SH: That's just because it all started from the same place and changed together
Dude: But isn't that consistent with Intelligent Design?
SH: Don't degrade yourself further ignoring the evidence of genetic drift that we're measuring in all species
Dude: but abiogenesis can't be duplicated in any laboratory or demonstrated in any experiment
SH: I'm not talking about that
Dude: and isn't there four separate explanations for the function of the basic building blocks of matter which don't exist in nature?
SH: not talking about that either
Dude: you're saying that however we sprang into being by whatever unknown processes, since then we're just rolling downhill like a snowball, by guess and by God
SH: no God, just guess, yeah
Dude: And I should also believe that if we all run the AC with windows open we're going to destroy this random process of life
SH: you're just being an ass
Dude: Funny how you deny God but dread 6 billion fatasses eating at McDonalds
SH: that's blasphemy
> Lucky+me=Snailsex wrote:
> Evolution is a fact !! for shure m8
and religion and god creating as more like a funny joke..
I mean come on.. its a entire book out dated for hundreds of years about the same thing as the top question..
'who comes first the chicken or the egg..'
god is a fake.. a 3de degree wizard at the most
Hey, Lucky! I have this crazy idea to suggest.
How about instead of just asserting your belief without justification... you answer those people who disagree... it's this crazy thing you may not have heard of... called a "discussion."
@ r3quim:
Actually the appendages when folded out made the animal look bigger, and if the wings had markings that say...looked like two giant eyes, may have been enough of a scare to predators that they might have not taken a chance to eat said winged animal.
So, non flying animals with apendages did not mean they were useless. Some of todays current insect and animals have these characteristics.
> Key wrote:
> @ r3quim:
Actually the appendages when folded out made the animal look bigger, and if the wings had markings that say...looked like two giant eyes, may have been enough of a scare to predators that they might have not taken a chance to eat said winged animal.
So, non flying animals with apendages did not mean they were useless. Some of todays current insect and animals have these characteristics.
Problem: If that were the case, the vast majority of flying species would retain the giant eye patterns to this day. Once developed, there's not really a reason to remove those patterns (aside from the few species who thrive upon using their colors for camouflage purposes).
Each species has it's own makeup to fit into the local natural selection process. Birds here don't eat black and yellow striped millipedes, because they're poisoness. How does a bird know it's poisoness, taking a bite out of it for the first time, and learning that anything that is small with many legs and has yellow and black stripes is not very good to eat.
Also that for certain cats that my that bird looks mighty tasty and small, but when the bird unfold it's wings and then jumps from a foot and a half at the shoulders to six feet wide oustretched...maybe it's not so small and easy a target as they believed.
Moth's, that's right moth's, do have several species where the design on their wings look like EYES stareing back at you. So that the birds think that it's actually a predator and not prey.
Same goes with some bird species down in south america. Whether by chance or accident in their DNA makeup during evolution, they survived, because their adaptations helped them survive.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Evolution is a fact!
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.