word
there is no proof of evolution over time. will we all suddenly become dogs just because we eat meat or something? no, of course not. that's stupid and doesn't hold any weight.
you can't start as a cat and end up a dog no matter how many years are involved. we weren't designed that way.
Evolution vs Creation II
-
trashtalkr
- Sports Guru
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:20 pm
- Contact:
"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?"
Soren Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
-
Cicada
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:59 pm
QUOTE(AYHJA)If you were a person that lived around people all of your life, and were forced to live in the wild among apes...You would NOT eventually become an ape...
What? Of course not. It's impossible for a individual to evolve, only a population over a long period of time. And yes, if a human population lived in the jungle they'd not turn into an apes, but they'd probably over a really long period of time evolve some characteristics different from the main human population that would help them survive in a jungle, and only that would happen if their survival was hampered by their biology. You can see humans as more highly evolved because we can adapt by using culture and tools instead of having to rely on our biology adapting. Humans will not evolve more unless our survival is put at risk.
You can only evolve and add to pre-existing systems, our genetics are different to genetics of our ancestors before the split between the great apes and now, so it's impossible for us to become apes. Because we don't have the same structure to mutate into something more beneficial.
The best example of this is dolphins, when certain artiodactyls had to go back to the sea to forage for food, they didn't evolve into fish, but they did slowly augument their front legs and tail into something like that of fish fins and a tail. But these fins and tail (fluke) only function like fish fins, their structure is completely different as a whales fin is a reorganised mamalian foot.
There's no undo button in evolution, you can only work and evolve with what you've got.
What? Of course not. It's impossible for a individual to evolve, only a population over a long period of time. And yes, if a human population lived in the jungle they'd not turn into an apes, but they'd probably over a really long period of time evolve some characteristics different from the main human population that would help them survive in a jungle, and only that would happen if their survival was hampered by their biology. You can see humans as more highly evolved because we can adapt by using culture and tools instead of having to rely on our biology adapting. Humans will not evolve more unless our survival is put at risk.
You can only evolve and add to pre-existing systems, our genetics are different to genetics of our ancestors before the split between the great apes and now, so it's impossible for us to become apes. Because we don't have the same structure to mutate into something more beneficial.
The best example of this is dolphins, when certain artiodactyls had to go back to the sea to forage for food, they didn't evolve into fish, but they did slowly augument their front legs and tail into something like that of fish fins and a tail. But these fins and tail (fluke) only function like fish fins, their structure is completely different as a whales fin is a reorganised mamalian foot.
There's no undo button in evolution, you can only work and evolve with what you've got.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Cicada
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:59 pm
So again, what biological process prevent a population of organisms from evolving into a form of life different from their ancestors. I'm not talking about a cat into a dog, I'm talking about a current species augmenting its current structure to adapt to a new environment and in turn becoming something vastly different to its ancestors.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Cicada
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:59 pm
QUOTE(trashtalkr)there is no proof of evolution over time. will we all suddenly become dogs just because we eat meat or something? no, of course not. that's stupid and doesn't hold any weight.
I'm sorry if I sound rude, but do you understand anything about evolution? At all? I mean seriously, could you post on how you think the ignorant scientists think evolution works? It would be very interesting.
I'm sorry if I sound rude, but do you understand anything about evolution? At all? I mean seriously, could you post on how you think the ignorant scientists think evolution works? It would be very interesting.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
This is precisely my point...
Using the example that you gave...Is a very logical, and reasonable way to explain the DIFFERENCE between the two...An evolutionary view is one that says we were once the same or similar, but that over a period of time, due to enviroment, social needs, etc, we became something completely different...
And in the model I used, it would hold the same EVEN if you were there with a mate...You and your offspring would simply adapt to the environment...Evolution is a VERY radical concept...It is not simply adaptation...It says alot, when you can tell someone that they were once a single celled organism...The similarity we share with apes and other primates is as similar to the similarities (at least genetically) with every other species...
If you walk barefoot all the time, over time you will become immune to it, the rigors of the surface, etc...Your offspring, after several generations, will reflect the various changes that took place...They ADAPT to it...By definition, as Deeje said, the EVOLVE would mean you would be born with feet that resembled the soles of shoes...
They are not the same...
QUOTE...evolve some characteristics different from the main human population that would help them survive in a jungle, and only that would happen if their survival was hampered by their biology. You can see humans as more highly evolved because we can adapt
You keep using the terms interjectively, again, they are implied within one another, just as skipping and strutting are both means of movement...One term implies something, and another term implies something else...I just don't see how, furthermore, how HUMANS are seemingly the lone species in the entire universe to have done this...
Another example...Bears...A Polar Bear is accustomed to living in an environment that is extemely different in location and social dynamics than a Kodiak bear...Over time, a Polar Bear ADAPTED to have thicker fur, a different color, different paws, etc...There is no mistaking a Polar Bear, from a Kodiak Bear...However...
IT IS STILL A BEAR
It did not EVOLVE into an entirely different animal...The simple fact that a human being can thrive ANYWHERE on this planet, should be more than sufficient proof that we could not have been spawned from a species that cannot...
AYHJA
Using the example that you gave...Is a very logical, and reasonable way to explain the DIFFERENCE between the two...An evolutionary view is one that says we were once the same or similar, but that over a period of time, due to enviroment, social needs, etc, we became something completely different...
And in the model I used, it would hold the same EVEN if you were there with a mate...You and your offspring would simply adapt to the environment...Evolution is a VERY radical concept...It is not simply adaptation...It says alot, when you can tell someone that they were once a single celled organism...The similarity we share with apes and other primates is as similar to the similarities (at least genetically) with every other species...
If you walk barefoot all the time, over time you will become immune to it, the rigors of the surface, etc...Your offspring, after several generations, will reflect the various changes that took place...They ADAPT to it...By definition, as Deeje said, the EVOLVE would mean you would be born with feet that resembled the soles of shoes...
They are not the same...
QUOTE...evolve some characteristics different from the main human population that would help them survive in a jungle, and only that would happen if their survival was hampered by their biology. You can see humans as more highly evolved because we can adapt
You keep using the terms interjectively, again, they are implied within one another, just as skipping and strutting are both means of movement...One term implies something, and another term implies something else...I just don't see how, furthermore, how HUMANS are seemingly the lone species in the entire universe to have done this...
Another example...Bears...A Polar Bear is accustomed to living in an environment that is extemely different in location and social dynamics than a Kodiak bear...Over time, a Polar Bear ADAPTED to have thicker fur, a different color, different paws, etc...There is no mistaking a Polar Bear, from a Kodiak Bear...However...
IT IS STILL A BEAR
It did not EVOLVE into an entirely different animal...The simple fact that a human being can thrive ANYWHERE on this planet, should be more than sufficient proof that we could not have been spawned from a species that cannot...
AYHJA
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Cicada
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:59 pm
QUOTE(AYHJA)Using the example that you gave...Is a very logical, and reasonable way to explain the DIFFERENCE between the two...An evolutionary view is one that says we were once the same or similar, but that over a period of time, due to enviroment, social needs, etc, we became something completely different...
Yup.
QUOTE(AYHJA)And in the model I used, it would hold the same EVEN if you were there with a mate...You and your offspring would simply adapt to the environment...Evolution is a VERY radical concept...It is not simply adaptation...It says alot, when you can tell someone that they were once a single celled organism...The similarity we share with apes and other primates is as similar to the similarities (at least genetically) with every other species...
It's only radical if you don't understand it. No, we share much more of our genetic code with primates than any other forms of life. Including our flaws, like L-GLO. If God designed us rather than designing the systems we evolved from, would he have done such a shocking job of creating us? I mean, we are one of the only animals which are unasorbic (which can be explained with evolution), most of our genetic code is vestigial filler, and we only have one decent tumour supressor (which can be explained with evolution).
QUOTE(AHYJA)If you walk barefoot all the time, over time you will become immune to it, the rigors of the surface, etc...Your offspring, after several generations, will reflect the various changes that took place...They ADAPT to it...By definition, as Deeje said, the EVOLVE would mean you would be born with feet that resembled the soles of shoes...
Wow... no, just, no.
If you walk barefoot all the time and get used to it, and you \"adapt\" as you say, your children won't have that adaption. If you think that's how adaption/evolution works, we might as well stop this discussion right now.
QUOTE(AHYJA)You keep using the terms interjectively, again, they are implied within one another, just as skipping and strutting are both means of movement...One term implies something, and another term implies something else...I just don't see how, furthermore, how HUMANS are seemingly the lone species in the entire universe to have done this...
Biological Evolution is purely biological, when humans go live in the snow and adapt by building fires and wearing furs, they are adapting by changing their enviroment not their biology. If i was taking adaption in the sense of people trying to live in the snow without altering the enviroment, so though generations the hairiest ones survived passed on their genes until the population was hairy, I'd call it evolution.
Adaption just refers to an environment and organism coming in equilibrium, this can be as I said through an alteration of the organism (biology) or the environment (tools). So that's why I use them interchangably, if a species through natural selection has an altering of it's genetic code to come at peace with it's environment, that's both evolution (the species changed) and adaption (it changed equalise with the environment.
QUOTE(AHYJA)Another example...Bears...A Polar Bear is accustomed to living in an environment that is extemely different in location and social dynamics than a Kodiak bear...Over time, a Polar Bear ADAPTED to have thicker fur, a different color, different paws, etc...There is no mistaking a Polar Bear, from a Kodiak Bear...However...
No, the Polar Bears evolved all those attributes. Saying it's not evolution because it's still a bear is just plain wrong. Let's say this hypothetical since some of us don't believe in evolution:
Say somehow you had access to a your patriachal ancestor's skulls, if you lined them all up in a you'd see a really gradual change between each skull. But still you got out your biology textbook and marked on "australopithicus" were a skull looked really "australopiticussy" and "homo erecuts" on a skull that looked really "homo erectussy" etc etc.
Now, what would the skulls look halfway between two marked skulls, and what would the skulls look like halfway between the halfway skull and the closest marked skull, etc, etc.
According to evolution, a"monkey" didn't just give birth to a human. A "monkey" gave birth to a slightly more "human""monkey", and then the slightly more human monkey gave birth to a slightly more human "slightly more human monkey" etc, etc.
Once again, explain the biological process which prevents "adaptions/microevolutions/whatever" from compounding into "evolution"? Where is the mechanism that tells an organism that too many small genetic mutations (adaptions/microevolutions/whevert" have happened and that they are far enough genetically from their ancestors to be called a different name by humans /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
Yup.
QUOTE(AYHJA)And in the model I used, it would hold the same EVEN if you were there with a mate...You and your offspring would simply adapt to the environment...Evolution is a VERY radical concept...It is not simply adaptation...It says alot, when you can tell someone that they were once a single celled organism...The similarity we share with apes and other primates is as similar to the similarities (at least genetically) with every other species...
It's only radical if you don't understand it. No, we share much more of our genetic code with primates than any other forms of life. Including our flaws, like L-GLO. If God designed us rather than designing the systems we evolved from, would he have done such a shocking job of creating us? I mean, we are one of the only animals which are unasorbic (which can be explained with evolution), most of our genetic code is vestigial filler, and we only have one decent tumour supressor (which can be explained with evolution).
QUOTE(AHYJA)If you walk barefoot all the time, over time you will become immune to it, the rigors of the surface, etc...Your offspring, after several generations, will reflect the various changes that took place...They ADAPT to it...By definition, as Deeje said, the EVOLVE would mean you would be born with feet that resembled the soles of shoes...
Wow... no, just, no.
If you walk barefoot all the time and get used to it, and you \"adapt\" as you say, your children won't have that adaption. If you think that's how adaption/evolution works, we might as well stop this discussion right now.
QUOTE(AHYJA)You keep using the terms interjectively, again, they are implied within one another, just as skipping and strutting are both means of movement...One term implies something, and another term implies something else...I just don't see how, furthermore, how HUMANS are seemingly the lone species in the entire universe to have done this...
Biological Evolution is purely biological, when humans go live in the snow and adapt by building fires and wearing furs, they are adapting by changing their enviroment not their biology. If i was taking adaption in the sense of people trying to live in the snow without altering the enviroment, so though generations the hairiest ones survived passed on their genes until the population was hairy, I'd call it evolution.
Adaption just refers to an environment and organism coming in equilibrium, this can be as I said through an alteration of the organism (biology) or the environment (tools). So that's why I use them interchangably, if a species through natural selection has an altering of it's genetic code to come at peace with it's environment, that's both evolution (the species changed) and adaption (it changed equalise with the environment.
QUOTE(AHYJA)Another example...Bears...A Polar Bear is accustomed to living in an environment that is extemely different in location and social dynamics than a Kodiak bear...Over time, a Polar Bear ADAPTED to have thicker fur, a different color, different paws, etc...There is no mistaking a Polar Bear, from a Kodiak Bear...However...
No, the Polar Bears evolved all those attributes. Saying it's not evolution because it's still a bear is just plain wrong. Let's say this hypothetical since some of us don't believe in evolution:
Say somehow you had access to a your patriachal ancestor's skulls, if you lined them all up in a you'd see a really gradual change between each skull. But still you got out your biology textbook and marked on "australopithicus" were a skull looked really "australopiticussy" and "homo erecuts" on a skull that looked really "homo erectussy" etc etc.
Now, what would the skulls look halfway between two marked skulls, and what would the skulls look like halfway between the halfway skull and the closest marked skull, etc, etc.
According to evolution, a"monkey" didn't just give birth to a human. A "monkey" gave birth to a slightly more "human""monkey", and then the slightly more human monkey gave birth to a slightly more human "slightly more human monkey" etc, etc.
Once again, explain the biological process which prevents "adaptions/microevolutions/whatever" from compounding into "evolution"? Where is the mechanism that tells an organism that too many small genetic mutations (adaptions/microevolutions/whevert" have happened and that they are far enough genetically from their ancestors to be called a different name by humans /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
I am having great fun, btw... /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />
QUOTEIf you walk barefoot all the time and get used to it, and you \"adapt\" as you say, your children won't have that adaption. If you think that's how adaption/evolution works, we might as well stop this discussion right now.
You deny the lack of a psychological \"evolution\" with this statement, do you not..?
And before we go any further, tell me how you could say this:
QUOTEAdaption just refers to an environment and organism coming in equilibrium
and turn right around and say this:
QUOTENo, the Polar Bears evolved all those attributes
LoL..WTF..? I'm not arguing Evolution vs Creation at this point, I am simply trying to grasp the foundation of your approach, and argument...
QUOTEIf you walk barefoot all the time and get used to it, and you \"adapt\" as you say, your children won't have that adaption. If you think that's how adaption/evolution works, we might as well stop this discussion right now.
You deny the lack of a psychological \"evolution\" with this statement, do you not..?
And before we go any further, tell me how you could say this:
QUOTEAdaption just refers to an environment and organism coming in equilibrium
and turn right around and say this:
QUOTENo, the Polar Bears evolved all those attributes
LoL..WTF..? I'm not arguing Evolution vs Creation at this point, I am simply trying to grasp the foundation of your approach, and argument...
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Fapper
- Rusty Guitar Player
- Posts: 3165
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:12 pm
- Location: ɹns ןǝp ɐɔıɹǝɯɐ
- Contact:
-
x3n
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:22 pm
so "adaptation" and "evolution" are causing all this stir, and yet your imaginary friend creating each creature, unchanging and imperfect are solid concepts?...all this in seven days, no less?
Dude, of course she's gonna dig it...your mom loves the cock
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |