Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 152/1176
(22-Feb-2003 at 01:23)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Fiery Balrog)

well now you are saying that Darwin's theory is wrong because the moth example was Natural Selection.
no I'm saying that that example cannot be used to prove Darwin's theory, it's about 2 decades out of date... and it's NOT an example of Natural selection, anymore than this example would be...

there are 200 black men and 200 white men in the same area, and they're being hunted by aliens... now first the area was white, so more black men got shot... so the ratio of white men went very high... but when the area turned black, the black men weren't easy to hunt and the white men were... so now the ratio of black men is the high one... but there were still only 2 groups, black or white... it's not like the moths developed the ability to change their color

give me some other examples....
#1741  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ketam Add Ketam to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 215/673
(22-Feb-2003 at 03:02)


If those moths were at one time the exact same specie, then they developed the ability to change their color. The one that survived more, is the one that will be the most dominant in the specie. Those genes will be passed on more frequently than those of the one that have a lower population. Thus those dominant genes will be expressed more often in the population of moths.

No, that's NOT a good example. You're giving a pre-determined population of just ONE generation. As I've stated before, it is over a LONG period of time that Evolution occurs, although the steps to make a specie different occurs when adaptations take place, alleles are modified and are passed on into the next genetic pool. And, it's not a good example, specifically because humans have a very LONG lifespan, whereas moths have a very SHORT lifespan. Plus, the fact that you chose all MEN.. How are they supposed to reproduce? Without reproduction then evolution would not be able to occur. There would be no new generations for the traits to be passed on to.

If I'm correct, the moths are the same specie, except for the fact that some are black in color and others are white. So, if the majority of the white ones are taken away, then eventually through many generations the white moths will die off, even through cross-breeding the two colors, which would occur naturally if they were the same specie. Thus, afterwards, the black moths would have a clear dominance, however, white moths would still appear in some offspring, due to genetic probability, because the white hue to the moths is still in the genetic pool.

Am I getting through to you or not?

"Be wary of what lurks about when the darkness consumes you, for it is not the darkness you should be most afraid of, but those rays of light that should care to take advantage of your unhealthy state of mind."
#1742  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Warlyik Add Warlyik to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Lord Drizzt)
Posts: 1141/3305
Donated $2.20
(22-Feb-2003 at 03:53)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Daedilus)

Yes, human embryos have gills. Big woop.
If you check, almost EVERYTHING has gills when its in the womb. (mammals) Its so it can breathe in the ambiotic fluid. How else is it going to get oxygen?
according to my biology class..
no, embryos and fetuses do NOT have gills. although they dont share the blood with their mother, they share the same oxygen. in a certain area of the womb, the fetus' blood vessels are aligned so close to the mother's blood vessels that the oxygen in the mother's blood vessels get absorbed into the baby's blood vessels. that's how the fetus gets its oxygen.

Quote:
Protei have far shorter generations than mankind. That's one thing. The second is that the environment was not tailor-made for the development of eyes. Kammerer's environment was specifically made to enhance the evolutionary rate of ocular development.
according to the evolution theory, there was no mankind
so the proteus's development was accelerated. a few hundred thousand times, or millions of times? the organisms were under the exposure of light, they werent buried under the soil. "millions of years to develop eyes" is ridiculous

s o u l f i r e
#1743  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Drizzt Add Drizzt to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Old pwn
Posts: 1/49
(22-Feb-2003 at 04:28)
"We are not human beings having spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience." -Chardin

Just because you cant proove somethings through science, doesnt mean they are false.

Uri Geller, bends a spoon by thought only.
Do you have a scientific explination for that?
Can your evolution explain that?
Can your theory of evolution explain how 1 man can know what the other is thinking (telepathy)?


"If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing." -Blaise Pascal
#1744  
View Public Profile Find more posts by pwn Add pwn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Agemmenion)
Posts: 192/789
Donated $1.36
(22-Feb-2003 at 05:02)


Evolution is easy to understand once you get the idea in your head.

Your dad is 7 feet tall. Your mom is 7 feet tall. Chances are you maxmimum height won't be 4 feet. You are 7 foot 5. You marry someone who is 7 foot 5. Your child is 8 feet tall he marries someone who is 8 feet tall. There kid is 8 foot 5. Wow. Over 4 generation we have witnessed a height increase of 1 and a half feet. I know realistically that would be very drastic but I was just using it to demonstrate. But even extremely small variations over millions of years will make huge differences.

Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution really shouldn't believe in the above scenario because without evolution the chances would be absolutely random. If your dad black and your mom was black the chances should be absolutely random what colour you should be. But no, It doesn't work that way. Unless there was genetics present from a white person or the child was albino it would be black.

================
No Medicine Can Cure a Fool
The object of war isn't to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his. -Patton
#1745  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Cydoc Add Cydoc to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1/6
Donated $0.56
(22-Feb-2003 at 05:09)
Wow. This topic is perhaps the single longest discussion on the subject that I've ever seen on the entire Internet.

I can't really absorb 2000 or so individual posts, nor will I try, so can someone who did answer some questions?

Has there been a discussion about increasingly humanlike and less apelike hominid fossils, including ones which paleontologists can't consistently identify as ape or human?

Has the atavistic human tail been posted?

How about the broken Vitamin C pseudogene we share with chimps (deactivated by the same crippling mutation)? The endogenous retroviral fragments found in closely related species such as dogs and foxes, mice and rats, humans and apes?

Were the results of Darwinian genetic algorithms, such as the radio which evolved from an electric soup in a computer simulation, been adequately discussed?
#1746  
View Public Profile Find more posts by WinAce Add WinAce to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 67/396
(22-Feb-2003 at 05:19)


Thank you, Warlyik. The hour and the fact I was late for an appointment may have rushed me. I should have added that as the moths kept breeding, the black gene become more prevalent - the white moths were bred out. Natural selection within a species IS evolution. How did giraffes get long necks? Short-necked giraffes could not reach food in the treetops. The short-necks were bred out of the species. Given a longer period of time, the moths' black (and, if you know your Mendel, recessive) gene would have completely wiped out the white - dominant - gene. No white moths could possibly be born because all moths with the white gene would be white, and therefore seen and eaten. Unless they had a 'luck' gene too.


Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drivel)
it's not evidence? how so?
Honestly. You can tell Creationists, but you cant tell them much. Evidence of a global flood it may be. Evidence of a global flood during human history it most certainly is not. There could be no folklore about those floods, because no-one was there to see them. Thus, you have not presented evidence of Noahs Flood, rather, of some prehistoric, pre-human, post-dinosauric flood or floods.


Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drivel)
according to the evolution theory, there was no mankind
so the proteus's development was accelerated. a few hundred thousand times, or millions of times? the organisms were under the exposure of light, they werent buried under the soil. "millions of years to develop eyes" is ridiculous
Evolution claims there is no mankind? *boggles* As I keep telling you, the timeframe on evolution is only part of the theory - hell, even scientists are constantly disputing it.


Quote:
(Originally posted by PopNFresh)
and besides that...if all of these things "chanced" into happening...then where did the single celled organism come from???? did a bunch of rocks crawl into the ocean, and turn to algae???

Everyone defends evolution...but they miss that key step...forget the rest....the beginning of life??? w/o a devine being....the chances would be much too wild for any super computer in the world to figure out...
You have picked up an interesting point here. My argument is simply that there may have been divine intervention in adding the 'spark of life', or it may have been lightning hitting some organic compound, Frankenstein style. However, I do not believe that some divine being created each species individually. Rather, that that first organism began evolving. If there is a God (or Gods!), I believe he is an experimental type. I think he set up the universe (with a Big Bang), then hung around a bit, watched the Earth created, said 'this is boring' and made life, then waited to see what happened. About now, he probably thinks things are getting interesting. (and yes, that does mean I dont believe Jesus was God. But thats an issue for another thread, I hope you can agree).


Quote:
(Originally posted by pwn)
Uri Geller, bends a spoon by thought only.
Do you have a scientific explination for that?
Can your evolution explain that?
Can your theory of evolution explain how 1 man can know what the other is thinking (telepathy)?
I suppose you think that David Copperfield really did make the Statue of Liberty disappear, and that John Edward really does speak to dead people. *sigh*
#1747  
View Public Profile Visit metao's homepage Find more posts by metao Add metao to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 153/1176
(22-Feb-2003 at 06:11)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Warlyik)

If those moths were at one time the exact same specie, then they developed the ability to change their color. The one that survived more, is the one that will be the most dominant in the specie. Those genes will be passed on more frequently than those of the one that have a lower population. Thus those dominant genes will be expressed more often in the population of moths.

No, that's NOT a good example. You're giving a pre-determined population of just ONE generation. As I've stated before, it is over a LONG period of time that Evolution occurs, although the steps to make a specie different occurs when adaptations take place, alleles are modified and are passed on into the next genetic pool. And, it's not a good example, specifically because humans have a very LONG lifespan, whereas moths have a very SHORT lifespan. Plus, the fact that you chose all MEN.. How are they supposed to reproduce? Without reproduction then evolution would not be able to occur. There would be no new generations for the traits to be passed on to.

If I'm correct, the moths are the same specie, except for the fact that some are black in color and others are white. So, if the majority of the white ones are taken away, then eventually through many generations the white moths will die off, even through cross-breeding the two colors, which would occur naturally if they were the same specie. Thus, afterwards, the black moths would have a clear dominance, however, white moths would still appear in some offspring, due to genetic probability, because the white hue to the moths is still in the genetic pool.

Am I getting through to you or not?
please read the example.. first of all I used men as in mankind, not men as in just males... my mistake there, but the timeframe wasn't specified...

the moths there ARE the same species, which is exactly my point... evolution suggests that such conditions as extra stress to a particular organism could force it to evolve to a NEW species... here we have natural selection, true, but the DNA of the moth does not change... in fact if the scenario holds true for a long time, the total genetic info of the moth actually decreases due to all the white/black moths being killed and that information someday disappearing from the gene pool...

That's not evolution, if a population of white AND black moths eventually becomes a population of only one color... no new genetic material has been added, and this actually DECREASES the chances of survival of the species, in case the polution goes away...
#1748  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ketam Add Ketam to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 160/311
(22-Feb-2003 at 07:51)


It's time for me to bust out my ass whomping stick I got for christmas.

Quote:
no new genetic material has been added
There are about four (?) different ways of genetic material being changed. Some of those include addition of new genetic material. *Double copying. More proof the human body is a poorly designed pile of garbage.* Natural selection + that = good riddens to your argument. If you speak only to rid us of the moth argument fine, but if you will spout such filth from your mouth that genetic information only decreases, then my friend, then is the time when I will become very... very... unpleasent.

My name is spelled wrong on purpose.
The statement below is a lie.
The statement above is a lie.
#1749  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Furios Add Furios to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 69/396
(22-Feb-2003 at 08:20)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Ketam)

but the DNA of the moth does not change... in fact if the scenario holds true for a long time, the total genetic info of the moth actually decreases due to all the white/black moths being killed and that information someday disappearing from the gene pool...

That's not evolution, if a population of white AND black moths eventually becomes a population of only one color... no new genetic material has been added, and this actually DECREASES the chances of survival of the species, in case the polution goes away...
Thats called superadaptation and an evolutionary dead end. But evolution works on the current environment, not all possible future environments. It IS still evolution. But the genetic information DOES change. If this happens several more times, and the genes lost also store other information, especially phenotype information, they will in fact be a different species.
#1750  
View Public Profile Visit metao's homepage Find more posts by metao Add metao to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 158/1176
(22-Feb-2003 at 13:35)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Furios)
There are about four (?) different ways of genetic material being changed. Some of those include addition of new genetic material. *Double copying. More proof the human body is a poorly designed pile of garbage.* Natural selection + that = good riddens to your argument. If you speak only to rid us of the moth argument fine, but if you will spout such filth from your mouth that genetic information only decreases, then my friend, then is the time when I will become very... very... unpleasent.
I was speaking of it to get rid of the moth argument...

then please give me another example of how DNA could be ADDED to an organism... I haven't seen ANY examples of this so far... and don't mention actual bio-engineering cos that's obviously intelligent design... something natural

btw Metao's post also argues against mine.. but this time he says the genetic information DOES change, even though it decreases... well hello? that's exactly what I said... and my point was if the genetic information decreases that's a dead-end (as you have pointed out yourself) and therefore not very useful to proving evolution in the terms of fish to reptile and all that
#1751  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ketam Add Ketam to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Bladesinger)
Posts: 82/432
(22-Feb-2003 at 13:44)


Until there is the EXACT proof then nothing can be said to be EXACTLY true. If evolution comes and smacks u in the face with a whole lot of REAL CONVINCING and TRUE proof, then it is true

Creation? How can u explain our creation then? We have religion to explain it to us. Divine power. But ofcourse those without a religion will think otherwise. How were u formed then? Ah! Maybe aliens came to this planet and created us in their test tubes. Sure..........

Truth be told we know very little about what we have no proof about. Best just to leave it until the time when it wants to be known.

There Anyone actually getting me?
#1752  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Jedi Outcast Add Jedi Outcast to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3/4
(22-Feb-2003 at 13:52)
f*cking hell drizzt, you sh*t me up the wall so much

every couple of weeks you start this sh*t up again whinging how science is constantly being disproved...

what has religion ever proved, what has it given us in return for our faith accept some misguided placebo that we are not alone in the universe?

you are always going on about how creation has no evidence, that you just have to believe...

maybe if you started this topic with a bit more evidence or direction i wouldn't be as pissed off but every time it comes up, you waffle on about how science is being CONSTANTLY disproved, when religion has proved nothing in terms of the creationist idea

is sheer hypocrisy, and it drives me insane :s
#1753  
View Public Profile Find more posts by wh0re Add wh0re to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 216/673
(22-Feb-2003 at 14:38)


Quote:
I was speaking of it to get rid of the moth argument...

then please give me another example of how DNA could be ADDED to an organism... I haven't seen ANY examples of this so far... and don't mention actual bio-engineering cos that's obviously intelligent design... something natural

btw Metao's post also argues against mine.. but this time he says the genetic information DOES change, even though it decreases... well hello? that's exactly what I said... and my point was if the genetic information decreases that's a dead-end (as you have pointed out yourself) and therefore not very useful to proving evolution in the terms of fish to reptile and all that
DNA isn't really ADDED naturally. The genes change, or morph, whatever you want to call it, unless of course you consider the jump from Prokaryotic Cells to Eukaryotic Cells, which might've involved actually taking some prokaryotic cells together, enveloping themselves within a single cellular membrane. But that is on a very small scale, which is a lot easier to change genetic information with.

And actually, according to the environment, that's not a dead-end. Now, if the environment were to change after the black moths became the very dominant type, then it would be considered a devolutionary course, atleast to our perspective. But, the genetic information for a white moth is STILL there, it's just masked by the over-abundance of black moths genes over a long period of time. A few out of every hundreds of moths would still become white, but most of the rest would be black.

Even if the information should decrease, that'd prove that evolution takes place. It's getting rid of USELESS information, so that the specie performs more efficiently. Generally speaking, humans have some useless genetic information as well, but we have such long lifespans that this may take quite a while to actually get rid of. Populations of other creatures would adapt and evolve more quickly to our eyes, but you can't relatively speak about humans evolving at the same rate; because that's just lacking of common sense.

In conclusion, whether that be a decrease of genetic information, devolution, or actually a benefit to the moths, it's still related to evolution, and supports it.

"Be wary of what lurks about when the darkness consumes you, for it is not the darkness you should be most afraid of, but those rays of light that should care to take advantage of your unhealthy state of mind."
#1754  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Warlyik Add Warlyik to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 159/1176
(22-Feb-2003 at 16:02)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Warlyik)
In conclusion, whether that be a decrease of genetic information, devolution, or actually a benefit to the moths, it's still related to evolution, and supports it.
u assume that natural selection happening means evolution should be true... when it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that... evolution is when new species evolve, and there is no proof that natural selection causes that... the example bout the moths given is in the same species, so are most of the 'examples of evolution' normally posted...

any change WITHIN a species proves that NATURAL SELECTION occurs... and that is all well and good, but isn't PROOF for evolution... it COULD coincide with evolution, just the same as it COULD coincide with Creation...

however, changes BETWEEN species are evidence of evolution... especially if the jump is big, for example monkey to man? isn't it strange that even with the almost 100% of our DNA shared with monkeys no monkey ever gets born that looks or acts even close to human?
#1755  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ketam Add Ketam to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 160/1176
(22-Feb-2003 at 16:03)


and I shouldn't be following my own post... but...

wh0re, u are out-of-date, Drizt started this topic long ago, pls don't just read the first post and then post 80 pages later.....
#1756  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ketam Add Ketam to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Lord Drizzt)
Posts: 1144/3305
Donated $2.20
(22-Feb-2003 at 16:07)


Quote:
(Originally posted by makeitup)
Honestly. You can tell Creationists, but you cant tell them much. Evidence of a global flood it may be. Evidence of a global flood during human history it most certainly is not. There could be no folklore about those floods, because no-one was there to see them. Thus, you have not presented evidence of Noahs Flood, rather, of some prehistoric, pre-human, post-dinosauric flood or floods.
you're saying this based on your reasoning that dinosaurs and humans did not live in the same time frame. according to creation, they did.


Quote:
Evolution claims there is no mankind? *boggles* As I keep telling you, the timeframe on evolution is only part of the theory - hell, even scientists are constantly disputing it.
is? *boggles*
well anyway for you second point, i'm just here to add some more contradiction

s o u l f i r e
#1757  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Drizzt Add Drizzt to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2095/2095
Donated $0.52
(22-Feb-2003 at 17:22)


Well it seems my part is done. All there is left are points that have been debated and flames. I'm dropping out of the argument for now. Good luck to all.

In brightest day, in blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil's might, Beware my power, Green Lantern's Light
Slave of Justara
Home~The Gaming Universe~Forums
#1758  
View Public Profile Visit AznBlade's homepage Find more posts by AznBlade Add AznBlade to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 219/673
(22-Feb-2003 at 18:10)


Quote:
u assume that natural selection happening means evolution should be true... when it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that... evolution is when new species evolve, and there is no proof that natural selection causes that... the example bout the moths given is in the same species, so are most of the 'examples of evolution' normally posted...

any change WITHIN a species proves that NATURAL SELECTION occurs... and that is all well and good, but isn't PROOF for evolution... it COULD coincide with evolution, just the same as it COULD coincide with Creation...

however, changes BETWEEN species are evidence of evolution... especially if the jump is big, for example monkey to man? isn't it strange that even with the almost 100% of our DNA shared with monkeys no monkey ever gets born that looks or acts even close to human?
You said earlier that natural selection didn't take place in moths. Now you accept that it did. Now, what exactly is your placing in this? If I can prove you wrong once, I'll do it again. And here we go. I swear, if I must explain to you the relation of Evolution and other terms again, I will stab myself in the eyeball.

Here's an example to take into consideration: At one time, man was known as the "Neanderthal" or, cave-man for instance. Little intelligence, a lot of brute force. Now, take THOUSANDS of years.. And what are we today? We may be CALLED the same specie, or referred to as such, but we have EVOLVED. We've become more intelligent, we make use of our environment more efficiently, we are top of the food chain, new inventions and such are thought up every day. We HAVE evolved. Do you think the human race was always as it was thousands of years ago? Of course not! This is evolution at its best! We possess what other animals do not as of yet, or to a much better extent. Our brain capacity is far beyond those of other animals, how do you think we got this way? Some dumbass God placed us here with automatic intelligence? If that were true, we'd probably be colonizing the moon right now. It obviously took TIME to get this far.

The moths may be the same specie, but they obviously have variations, so do we. We may all be considered the same specie, but in technicality we could all be considered a different specie just by one gene different from another. It doesn't matter what we name them, because if their genetic makeup changes even slightly, they can be considered a new specie. But, to not complicate things, we give them a general name so that they can be categorize more efficiently. What were to happen if every genetic change was catalogued? Well, I assure you we'd have a ton of people working on updating information regarding those species daily.

And how should natural selection support Creation? Does it say anywhere in your little books that we all change and evolve? Natural selection supports evolution almost ENTIRELY. The strong survive, the weak fail. That's why we have different species on this planet. Otherwise we'd all be exactly the same.

Why does a monkey not look like a man? Their genes may be very similar to ours, but even the slightest difference can cause very large changes. Take for instance that DNA is comprised of only 4 substances: Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine. Look at all the species on this planet, every living organism with these 4 basic compounds for their DNA structure, and you will see why every little difference can cause such big differences. If your little similarity probability were to be correct, then most species on the planet would look VERY similar, and be comprised of VERY similar DNA structures. Do you see that?

"Be wary of what lurks about when the darkness consumes you, for it is not the darkness you should be most afraid of, but those rays of light that should care to take advantage of your unhealthy state of mind."
#1759  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Warlyik Add Warlyik to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 162/311
(22-Feb-2003 at 18:51)


Quote:
Why does a monkey not look like a man? Their genes may be very similar to ours, but even the slightest difference can cause very large changes. Take for instance that DNA is comprised of only 4 substances: Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine. Look at all the species on this planet, every living organism with these 4 basic compounds for their DNA structure, and you will see why every little difference can cause such big differences. If your little similarity probability were to be correct, then most species on the planet would look VERY similar, and be comprised of VERY similar DNA structures. Do you see that?Why does a monkey not look like a man? Their genes may be very similar to ours, but even the slightest difference can cause very large changes. Take for instance that DNA is comprised of only 4 substances: Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine. Look at all the species on this planet, every living organism with these 4 basic compounds for their DNA structure, and you will see why every little difference can cause such big differences. If your little similarity probability were to be correct, then most species on the planet would look VERY similar, and be comprised of VERY similar DNA structures. Do you see that?
I thank you deeply warlyik. I didn't have to explain that.

Quote:
then please give me another example of how DNA could be ADDED to an organism... I haven't seen ANY examples of this so far... and don't mention actual bio-engineering cos that's obviously intelligent design... something natural
Well it's been a while since I looked this up but part of it is our cells not copying the DNA correctly and making a double copy of something. Look it up if you want to. I'm having a bad enough time trying to dispel myths.

My name is spelled wrong on purpose.
The statement below is a lie.
The statement above is a lie.
#1760  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Furios Add Furios to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 22:36.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.