|
Posts: 152/1176
(22-Feb-2003 at 00:23)  |
Quote:
(Originally posted by Fiery Balrog)
well now you are saying that Darwin's theory is wrong because the moth example was Natural Selection. 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.... |
||
|
|
Posts: 215/673
(22-Feb-2003 at 02:02)  |
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? |
||
|
|
|
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? 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.
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 |
||
|
|
Posts: 1/49
(22-Feb-2003 at 03:28) |
"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 |
||
|
|
|
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 |
||
|
|
|
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?  |
||
|
|
Posts: 67/396
(22-Feb-2003 at 04:19)  |
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?
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
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...
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)? |
||
|
|
Posts: 153/1176
(22-Feb-2003 at 05:11) |
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? 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... |
||
|
|
Posts: 160/311
(22-Feb-2003 at 06:51)  |
It's time for me to bust out my ass whomping stick I got for christmas.
Quote:
no new genetic material has been added
My name is spelled wrong on purpose. The statement below is a lie. The statement above is a lie. |
||
|
|
Posts: 69/396
(22-Feb-2003 at 07:20) |
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... |
||
|
|
Posts: 158/1176
(22-Feb-2003 at 12:35) |
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. 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 |
||
|
|
(Posted as Bladesinger)
Posts: 82/432 (22-Feb-2003 at 12:44)  |
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?  |
||
|
|
Posts: 3/4
(22-Feb-2003 at 12:52) |
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 |
||
|
|
Posts: 216/673
(22-Feb-2003 at 13:38) |
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 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. |
||
|
|
Posts: 159/1176
(22-Feb-2003 at 15:02) |
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. 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? |
||
|
|
|
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.
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.
well anyway for you second point, i'm just here to add some more contradiction |
||
|
|
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Posts: 219/673
(22-Feb-2003 at 17:10) |
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? 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? |
||
|
|
Posts: 162/311
(22-Feb-2003 at 17:51) |
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?
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
My name is spelled wrong on purpose. The statement below is a lie. The statement above is a lie. |
||
|
Linear Mode
