Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 89
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    1,326
    Post Thanks / Like

    My thoughts on Evolution

    This is lengthy..... but here it goes....

    First, let's start before evolution.... we come to a point that many people have drawn up theories where perhaps at some point, this universe was created, or, that it was always here.

    If the universe was created, we can logically understand that it had to be initiated by something, what force would be able to created a universe with such astronomical magnatude? could it be that everything that physically exists, had a cause? I believe so. This idea is called "causality," where everything that physically (anything finite and limited) exists had a cause, came from somewhere. We can also say that this universe is limited and quite finite, despite the fact many people refute the fact that it is. I offer one fact, the universe is expanding, if something is expanding, it's not infinite, thus, finite. In my opinion, anything and everything that is physical is finite. If everything is finite, it came from somewhere, it had a cause, this is basic newtonian laws, cause and effect crap. With this in mind, i say that this universe was created by some Creator that lives outside physical limitations, a Force that had the power to create a universe, a Being that is metaphysical that lives outside time and the universe.

    Many people question: how was God created? well, consider that God is not limited to time, and lives outside it, has no age. He just IS. He didn't need to be created, because he does not live in a realm of time, he is not limited in any aspect of physics, being metaphysical.

    Many people are going to disagree with me here, but, I believe it's all too valid. All around you, there is evidence of what we know as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). It's evident to all that this exists, we see cars rust away, people age and die, everything basically falls from order into chaos. Everything around us is affected by it, it's inevitable, inescapable.

    Today, many modern scientists and doctors claim that this human race could not survive with all the diseases in the world without medicine. We know that more and more and more diseases are birth and attack our civilizations, without medicine, we would suffer great losses. I just like to wonder about the fact that our "ancestors" did not have medicine, did not have have hospital, did not have all this stuff to help them out. Can a speicies adapt fast enough to conquer all these diseases being created at such an incredible rate?

    How about DNA? Microevolution does exist, but there is a huge difference between that and Macroevolution. Microevolution is basically adaptation/survival of the fittest, and change in DNA. Macroevolution is completely new DNA derived from mutations. I would like to point out first, that mutations do NOT created new genes. We all know that speicies all have different amounts of DNA genes, but where do we get them from, i wonder? Mutation involves an amino acid being added or subtracted from our DNA, NOT NEW GENES. This addition/subtraction happens upon a gene that we ALREADY have. When we eat, we eat food with proteins that are like nucleotides that replenish our DNA and genes, we all need proteins to renew our DNA. so, RNA (if i'm wrong here, correct me, i forget the specifics) leaves to get new nucleotides (i think this is during transcription), it's a copy of a gene, this is where mutations happen, where an amino acid/nucleotide, is added onto a gene, which note, we already have, it's not new at all. Where do new genes come from? the fact is, you simply do not get new genes.

    How does this evolution work? Survival of the fittest is simply adaptation, which is CHANGE in DNA, not NEW. people constantly try to prove the fact that mutations are beneficial over all, which is a bunch of lies. Many use the sickle celled anemia case, where if a person has it in a malaria infested area, that it is beneficial. Correct me if i'm wrong, if you happened not to get malaria, is sickle celled anemia in any way... beneficial? Let's face the facts, mutations are not exactly beneficial, they are mistakes in transcription, "defective" from their original function, not complete. Adaptation is change in DNA, but this does not cause you to evolve at all, that is ridiculousness.

    since evolution can go only one way, and not two at a time, i wonder which came first... male or female? if evolution created male first, we would have a lot of gay couples that have no way of reproducing, or was it female? i think i'm going to hear the excuse of we were asexual and gradually evolved into making a different sex in which they started screwing each other and all this crap... blah. I like to think about how a fish got lungs, that one serves a good laugh for me. I wonder how the hell, did a fish, out of RANDOM mutations (that don't get new genes) get lungs? i find that evolution is a force in itself, to guide an water breathing species to breathe... AIR? how? from what? how did it come up with the EXACT components of coming up with a lung? isn't that a bit farfetched? I thought I remembered that things gradually become more chaotic, more disorder, not order. We have to admit, that without medicine and technology, we would be pretty screwed. Wouldn't our DNA get worse over years? would adaptation be able to keep up with it?

    intelligence, if you ask me, there was a great leap from us and from what we came from. we have skyscrapers, computers, internet, cars, and all SORTS of stuff. You want to know the best thing our ancestors came up with? spearheads and cooking tools, and now they don't exist. And suddenly, we have such incredible intelligence to do awesome things, stuff that just would make a chimp crap in their pants, even though they mostly don't understand it. The brain itself can hardly be explained by modern experts, it's such a mystery, and yet, did intelligence really come out of... nothing? *shakes head* no no and no. You can see that humans are gifted with this intelligence over every other species... why? because that's how God created it. a 1% difference between speicies is an astronomically HUGE difference. We can't use the fossil field, because we don't have enough to fill the many holes in the chain. we don't see the gradual change, just different stages, but even then, there are many differences, differences that people don't mention. I heard that there is a 3% difference between us and our ancestors.. people, that is a HUGE difference, BIG BIG BIG difference. People ask, "why do we have all the same type of DNA then?" Simple, without other animals and plants having DNA, where would be get our protein from to survive? when we eat a burger or some vegatables, we eat protein that will replenish our DNA.

    What is the purpose of life? Was it truly created out of nothingness and out of total randomness that somehow created a living world of species, what direction are we heading? was their a purpose in the creation of us? or is it truly random nothingness that created us and we have to make our own purpose to live? to what end i wonder? to the final destruction of them? i feel there was a definite direction, even in evolution, its direction too purposeful for SOMETHING. if we won't exist after some thousands of years, then what's the point in the end when it will just end? Are you people telling me, that we were created by some random series of events and somehow got here? Is that it? We only have about 100 years to live in this life, only to pass by as if it is nothing? Think about it people, you only have 100 years of life, and then.. you are gone forever. to be forgotten, to be nothing, to be a lost thought. I feel there is a big purpose of us being here, there IS a reason why we are here, we are not just creatures here to exist and bump into each other, we are headed into a direction for a reason. Evolution is the biggest hog wash ever created, this post is nothing, i can come up with so many more specific questions to NO end. It just doesn't work, i'm sorry.

    All in all, I believe that we are here for a purpose, we are here because of a Creator (I chose to believe that it is God). I think that there is an afterlife, something out there that we cannot grasp. Don't you find it amazing that scientists dedicate their lives to have knowledge of how we got here, and come to no avail, to no conclusion? why are there so many question and so little answers in life? Life was not meant to be understood, it's merely because God created it. People try to explain God with logic, when logic in itself is an observation of something we see, that we can touch, taste, hear, and smell. How can people come up with "logical" conclusions when God in himself is not observable and testable? People spend years on knowledge and never help the world, we have so many people living on streets, and we see them every single day of our lives and pity them. Yet, not a one of them, stops to even help this person. We have people dying everyday in front of us, and we cannot even go up to them and buy them lunch. It would mean the WORLD to a homeless person for us to just come up and say "hi." because we acknowledged them. People cannot survive without "love." Love is such a strong emotion, and without it, people die. Without love, there is only hate, and as wise Yoda said: "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering..." Hate leads to death, people die of loneliness because no one said a word to them, no one cared enough about them.

    God saw that we were dying in sin, and God sent a Love, a Son, to come and die for us on a cross, so that we wouldn't die. The ultimate sacrifice, Jesus took all the sins of the world, and conquered death on the cross. The wages of sin is death, yet God loved us so much, that he sent his only begotten Son, so that we may be saved through him and not perish. We are faced with a decision to accept this gift of life, a ticket to heaven, and people reject it everyday, blaming God for every bad thing that happens to us. God realized that without love, we would die, with HIS love, he made a way for us to live. You may not believe me, but i can see it when i look in the stars, i can see it in the trees, in people, i see God (not literally people). I see his power, his glory, his creation, do you people think you are here for no reason than to just live out a hard working life that will have no overall effect? You people are misled by your logic, and it blinds you to believe in nonsense. I believe that everyone has a purpose, i believe there was an intent behind our creation.

    This is what I believe.
    Last edited by ShadowKnight; December 14th, 2004 at 01:53 AM.
    "With His dying breath... He saved me, with His wounds... He healed me, with His life... He died for me, although I never met Him, He remembered... me."

    +++=][ShadowKnight][=+++

  2. #2
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    I haven't read your entire post because you tripped a huge pet peeve of mine in your first paragraph.

    Evolution is concerned with living things. Period.

    If it's a rock, evolution doesn't apply. Evolution doesn't tell us how life originated or how rocks / planets / stars got to be where they are and how they are now.

    Evolution tells us how life becomes other life.

    That's it. That's as far as it goes.

    Now, what theists and non-theists are guilty of is pushing evolution past its logical conclusion.

    Evolutionist: "... and in conclusion, that is how we know men came from apes or ape-like organisms."

    Theist: "So, then you're denying that god created man. Very nice. Where do you..."

    Evolutionist: *interrupting* "I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that men are evolved from ape or ape-like creatures. If you want to read more into it than that, then you're putting words into my mouth."

    Meditate upon this as I wade through the rest of your post.

  3. #3
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Theistic_Hurricane
    If the universe was created, we can logically understand that it had to be initiated by something, what force would be able to created a universe with such astronomical magnatude? could it be that everything that physically exists, had a cause? I believe so. This idea is called "causality," where everything that physically (anything finite and limited) exists had a cause, came from somewhere. We can also say that this universe is limited and quite finite, despite the fact many people refute the fact that it is. I offer one fact, the universe is expanding, if something is expanding, it's not infinite, thus, finite. In my opinion, anything and everything that is physical is finite. If everything is finite, it came from somewhere, it had a cause, this is basic newtonian laws, cause and effect crap. With this in mind, i say that this universe was created by some Creator that lives outside physical limitations, a Force that had the power to create a universe, a Being that is metaphysical that lives outside time and the universe.
    1) You are presented a re-worded watchmaker argument.

    2) The universe is NOT finite. Your understanding of what is meant by the statement "The universe is expanding" is highly flawed. Scientists have based this statement on observation of PHYSICAL MATTER. It means that stars, as near as we can tell, are moving "outward". We state this because we can only MEASURE stars because they're the only things that give off enough energy to be seen at great distances.* So it is the case that "the universe is expanding" is a bit of a misnomer. It is the case that the STUFF inside the universe is moving away from other stuff in the universe.

    The universe is very much infinite... and it doesn't speak much about your god if he can't get it together to create infinity


    *Stars or star-like bodies such as pulsars, novas / super-novas (exploding stars).

  4. #4
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    Many people question: how was God created? well, consider that God is not limited to time, and lives outside it, has no age. He just IS. He didn't need to be created, because he does not live in a realm of time, he is not limited in any aspect of physics, being metaphysical.

    Many people are going to disagree with me here, but, I believe it's all too valid. All around you, there is evidence of what we know as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). It's evident to all that this exists, we see cars rust away, people age and die, everything basically falls from order into chaos. Everything around us is affected by it, it's inevitable, inescapable.
    In the mortgage business, this is what we call a HUGE logical leap. You were going along shakily with some flawed definitions but you were at least internally consistant. You were building on statements regarding the universe, it's formation and "size" and suddenly we jump to "car rust"??? Sorry, hoss, but that doesn't hold water.

    Entropy is a naturally occuring phenomenon. We have a pretty solid understanding of why it happens and we can even measure how it happens.

    You stating the second law of thermodynamics is proof of god is akin to me stating that lightning is proof of Thor and we both know that's not the case.

  5. #5
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    Today, many modern scientists and doctors claim that this human race could not survive with all the diseases in the world without medicine. We know that more and more and more diseases are birth and attack our civilizations, without medicine, we would suffer great losses. I just like to wonder about the fact that our "ancestors" did not have medicine, did not have have hospital, did not have all this stuff to help them out. Can a speicies adapt fast enough to conquer all these diseases being created at such an incredible rate?
    You're looking at diseases on a modern day level and superimposing them onto our ancestors way of life.

    Do you know what humanity's single most powerful defense against disease was prior to the invention of agriculture?


    Isolation.


    If a member of a tribe of pre-agricultural humans got sick with something that could wipe out a tribe, it wiped out a tribe... but ONLY that tribe. Likewise, we have silly ideas today about treating our sick and caring for them. If you were alive about 10K years ago, if someone in your tribe got sick enough, they probably got left behind.

    Consider AIDS. If AIDS had hit even as recently as 2000 years ago, the only people it would have threatened would have been the Romans because they were the only folks doing a lot of traveling and interacting *ahem* with one another in their travels. If we introduce AIDS into a tribe of a couple dozen humans living in caves using stone tools who does it kill? It kills the person who contracted it, his/her mate and their children.

    That's it.

    Even if the virus spread to the ENTIRE tribe, then it would just wipe out that tribe.

    So, yes, ShadowKnight, disease has always been with us. And no, we didn't survive it. I'm sure Influenza killed scores of humans before the time of agriculture ever begun. We survived as a species because we were too spread out and isolated to spread the really nasty ones.

    Today, we have mass travel. We have THOUSANDS of people coming into contact with one another. We have global commerce... tens of thousands of people traveling the globe at any one time. THAT'S why we have diseases spreading... because WE'RE spreading and interacting like never before.

    Consider the influenza outbreak during WWI which killed more people than bullets, artilery and poison gas of that war combined. Do you think the disease would have been nearly so "successful" without huge populations of soldiers traveling all over while carrying the disease?

  6. #6
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    How about DNA? Microevolution does exist, but there is a huge difference between that and Macroevolution. Microevolution is basically adaptation/survival of the fittest, and change in DNA. Macroevolution is completely new DNA derived from mutations. I would like to point out first, that mutations do NOT created new genes. We all know that speicies all have different amounts of DNA genes, but where do we get them from, i wonder? Mutation involves an amino acid being added or subtracted from our DNA, NOT NEW GENES. This addition/subtraction happens upon a gene that we ALREADY have. When we eat, we eat food with proteins that are like nucleotides that replenish our DNA and genes, we all need proteins to renew our DNA. so, RNA (if i'm wrong here, correct me, i forget the specifics) leaves to get new nucleotides (i think this is during transcription), it's a copy of a gene, this is where mutations happen, where an amino acid/nucleotide, is added onto a gene, which note, we already have, it's not new at all. Where do new genes come from? the fact is, you simply do not get new genes.
    This would be a valid paragraph if human beings weren't 99% identical genetically to chimpanzees.

    'nuff said.

  7. #7
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    How does this evolution work? Survival of the fittest is simply adaptation, which is CHANGE in DNA, not NEW. people constantly try to prove the fact that mutations are beneficial over all, which is a bunch of lies.
    Actually, you're partially right.

    What is the case is that theists have fixated on attaching "survival of the fittest" to "evolution". The idea of evolution is NOT positive mutations are kept while negative ones die out. The idea of evolution is that mutations HAPPEN. Period. Some are good. Some are bad. Some just happen. However, the flaw in your argument is that not all negative mutations yield the death of a species. Sometimes, a species gets a mutation that isn't good or bad... it just is.

    Consider for a moment the Cheetah. The cheetah can run at nearly 70 miles per hour. We could point to that and say, "Wow, now THAT is a positive adaptation. Look how positive and amazing that is!" Well, it is and it isn't. Sure, the cheetah is fast, but it also has many limitations.

    1) It can't corner. Nothing can outrun the cheetah, but most gazelles that it hunts can turn on a dime.

    2) It can't breath. When the cheetah runs at full speed it holds its breath. So, the amount of time it can spend running is HIGHLY limited and when it's done running it has to spend a good amount of time resting... or it dies.

    3) This one is the most important. As a runner, the cheetah has ZERO room for extra body fat on its body. This means it's REALLY lousy at storing food... which means it HAS to eat about every other day or, well... it dies.

    Still sound like a great adaptation? There's every indication that cheetah numbers were dwindling in Africa BEFORE we started whiping away their territory.

    The point is that a lot of adaptations that we point to as "beneficial" are simply our PERCEPTION. What one biologist looks at as a boon, another can look to as a bane.

    Many use the sickle celled anemia case, where if a person has it in a malaria infested area, that it is beneficial. Correct me if i'm wrong, if you happened not to get malaria, is sickle celled anemia in any way... beneficial?
    No, but nor is it harmful. Allow me to correct you.

    Sickle cell anemia is a recessive gene. You get one gene from your father and one from your mother. Each one can either be positive or negative.

    If you have two negative genes, then you don't have cycle cell anemia.

    If you have one negative gene and one positive gene, you're a carrier. You'll never in your life feel a single symptom of cycle cell anemia, but you're completely immune to milaria. Milaria is a disease that attaches to blood cells and carriers of cycle cell anemia have cells that milaria cannot bond to.

    If you have two positive genes, then you have full blown cycle cell anemia and some (potentially) serious health problems.

    So, being a carrier is actually pretty cool. So long as you don't give it to your kids, you can go to milaria infested areas of the world without worry of catching the disease and without ever suffering from the anemia.


    Let's face the facts, mutations are not exactly beneficial, they are mistakes in transcription, "defective" from their original function, not complete.
    I find it ironic that you talk about facing "facts" after presenting an argument based on perception.

    Adaptation is change in DNA, but this does not cause you to evolve at all, that is ridiculousness.
    Adapting and changing your DNA are two different concepts. Shadowknight, your argument is all over the place. I suggest you organize your thoughts after doing some more research.

  8. #8
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    since evolution can go only one way, and not two at a time, i wonder which came first... male or female? if evolution created male first, we would have a lot of gay couples that have no way of reproducing, or was it female? i think i'm going to hear the excuse of we were asexual and gradually evolved into making a different sex in which they started screwing each other and all this crap... blah. I like to think about how a fish got lungs, that one serves a good laugh for me. I wonder how the hell, did a fish, out of RANDOM mutations (that don't get new genes) get lungs? i find that evolution is a force in itself, to guide an water breathing species to breathe... AIR? how? from what? how did it come up with the EXACT components of coming up with a lung? isn't that a bit farfetched? I thought I remembered that things gradually become more chaotic, more disorder, not order. We have to admit, that without medicine and technology, we would be pretty screwed. Wouldn't our DNA get worse over years? would adaptation be able to keep up with it?
    If we take this paragraph and make an analogy to geology what you've effectively done is picked up a pebble in your hand and said, "See! Look how small this is! How could this become a mountain!? Mountains are tall and this is just... just... TINY!"

    You're overlooking all the middle stages between fish and air breathing organisms.

    You're overlooking the fact that there are several species of single celled organisms capable of exchanging genetic material AND "budding" to reproduce their species.

  9. #9
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    intelligence, if you ask me, there was a great leap from us and from what we came from. we have skyscrapers, computers, internet, cars, and all SORTS of stuff. You want to know the best thing our ancestors came up with? spearheads and cooking tools, and now they don't exist.
    What the CENSORED are you talking about!?

    1) The stone headed spear is an incredibly advanced piece of technology. Don't believe me?

    Try making one.

    Better yet, try making one without first LOOKING UP how to make one. Make one from scratch that you can use to either

    a) hit something small enoughto eat.
    b) fend of something big enough to easily hit, but that can probably eat or stampede you.

    2) What the CENSORED do you mean they don't exist anymore? Of course COOKING TOOLS exist, hoss. This statement you've made is nonsensical. As for spears and such, we don't use them because we found other technologies to replace them. Like the fence. The fence is a pretty cool bit of tech. It keeps your dinner from running away so you don't have to keep hunting / stabbing it.

    And suddenly, we have such incredible intelligence
    Suddenly. Heh. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? There's no "suddenly" in evolution, hoss. Not even close. See, this is the problem that a lot of creationists have (particularly young-earth creationists). You don't have a sense of just how long of a time period we're talking about.

    Consider the fruit fly. It has a lifespan of about two weeks and mutations can be observed in one to two generations. Well, if we define a human generation as 15 years* then we've had One-hundred and thirty three generations since the time of Jesus. 35,000 years ago and we were already fabricating musical instruments... that's 2,333 generations of human beings JUST as human beings and the fact that we had the time and inclination to build a flute means that we'd already been around for a LONG time.

    You lack perspective, my desciple. Meditate upon this.


    to do awesome things, stuff that just would make a chimp crap in their pants, even though they mostly don't understand it. The brain itself can hardly be explained by modern experts, it's such a mystery, and yet, did intelligence really come out of... nothing? *shakes head* no no and no. You can see that humans are gifted with this intelligence over every other species... why? because that's how God created it.
    Oh please.

    Cats are curious.
    Dogs can feel a range of emotions.
    Whales have language.
    Bonobos, otters and apes have a range of tools that they can use as well as complex social structures.
    Elephants have traditions.
    Ants and termites have agricultre.

    Our thought process is only unique in that we have, over those thousands of generations, developed the ability to understand metaphor. That's really the only difference between us and any other social meat-eating mammal.

    a 1% difference between speicies is an astronomically HUGE difference. We can't use the fossil field, because we don't have enough to fill the many holes in the chain. we don't see the gradual change, just different stages, but even then, there are many differences, differences that people don't mention. I heard that there is a 3% difference between us and our ancestors.. people, that is a HUGE difference, BIG BIG BIG difference. People ask, "why do we have all the same type of DNA then?" Simple, without other animals and plants having DNA, where would be get our protein from to survive? when we eat a burger or some vegatables, we eat protein that will replenish our DNA.
    Now you're just ranting with half-truths and "I heards". You have presented nothing here worthy of discussion.

    *Humans have been having babies during the teen years for THOUSANDS of years and still do so in modern times.

  10. #10
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    What is the purpose of life?...
    ...All in all, I believe that we are here for a purpose...
    As you so aptly put, any idea of so-called "purpose" is simply our perception and nothing more.

    You've chosen to look at the world through rose-tinted glasses and arbitrarily decide that a handful of natural phenomenon should be considered "evidence" of your favorite brand of folklore. If logical validity were analogous to nutritional food, then your statement above would be a hot fudge sunday with a scoop of extra lard on top.

  11. #11
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    God saw that we were dying in sin, and God sent a Love, a Son, to come and die for us on a cross, so that we wouldn't die. The ultimate sacrifice, Jesus took all the sins of the world, and conquered death on the cross. The wages of sin is death, yet God loved us so much, that he sent his only begotten Son, so that we may be saved through him and not perish. We are faced with a decision to accept this gift of life, a ticket to heaven, and people reject it everyday, blaming God for every bad thing that happens to us. God realized that without love, we would die, with HIS love, he made a way for us to live. You may not believe me, but i can see it when i look in the stars, i can see it in the trees, in people, i see God (not literally people). I see his power, his glory, his creation, do you people think you are here for no reason than to just live out a hard working life that will have no overall effect? You people are misled by your logic, and it blinds you to believe in nonsense. I believe that everyone has a purpose, i believe there was an intent behind our creation.
    Dude, it's DEBATEforum.net... not PREACHforums.net. This was completely unnecessry.

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    Too lengthy, so I'll tackle you in my specialty area, and leave the physics to a physicist.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowKnight
    Today, many modern scientists and doctors claim that this human race could not survive with all the diseases in the world without medicine. We know that more and more and more diseases are birth and attack our civilizations, without medicine, we would suffer great losses. I just like to wonder about the fact that our "ancestors" did not have medicine, did not have have hospital, did not have all this stuff to help them out. Can a speicies adapt fast enough to conquer all these diseases being created at such an incredible rate?
    Until the advent of medicine, the human lifespan was most often cut short at around 40 years old, perhaps slightly younger. Due to illness and malnutrition, it was very rare to have a person live to become 60, 80, or especially 100 years old. Rapidly-spreading viruses such as the Bubonic Plague killed an estimated 1/3 of Europe's total population. Although such drastic examples are uncommon, there are other examples, such as the various poxes, influenza, and malaria, all of which are either contained or vaccinated against today.

    How about DNA? Microevolution does exist, but there is a huge difference between that and Macroevolution. Microevolution is basically adaptation/survival of the fittest, and change in DNA. Macroevolution is completely new DNA derived from mutations.
    Be careful using terms such as "completely new DNA." It turns out that similar genes between species do, in fact, have similar structure. For example, one experiment on drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) in which the genes that coded for the growth of the head were knocked out of the embryonic DNA, and then replaced with the genes of a mouse's head coding genes. The fly with the mouse head DNA grew a normal and functional fly head.

    I would like to point out first, that mutations do NOT created new genes.
    Unfortunately, it's pretty painfully clear that they do. I'll explain in order.
    We all know that speicies all have different amounts of DNA genes, but where do we get them from, i wonder? Mutation involves an amino acid being added or subtracted from our DNA, NOT NEW GENES.
    Here's how it's structured actually: The basic unit of DNA is an nucleotide with one of 4 base pairs, A, T, C, or G. 3 base pairs in sequence form a codon. A codon, depending on the order of the 3 base pairs in sequence, will code for a specific amino acid, of which there are 20, so some codons have common functions, so it is possible to have a "silent mutation" in which the nucleotide is changed, but the codon still codes for the same amino acid. Mutations are simply erroneous base pairs that make new codons, which make new amino acids, which change the proteins they code for.

    This addition/subtraction happens upon a gene that we ALREADY have. When we eat, we eat food with proteins that are like nucleotides that replenish our DNA and genes, we all need proteins to renew our DNA. so, RNA (if i'm wrong here, correct me, i forget the specifics) leaves to get new nucleotides (i think this is during transcription), it's a copy of a gene, this is where mutations happen, where an amino acid/nucleotide, is added onto a gene, which note, we already have, it's not new at all. Where do new genes come from? the fact is, you simply do not get new genes.
    Protein we eat gets almost completely digested, because, for example, we have no use for a protein made by a cow, that performs cow bodily functions. Therefore, we break them down to simple components and rearrange them into human proteins.

    How does this evolution work? Survival of the fittest is simply adaptation, which is CHANGE in DNA, not NEW.
    Nobody claims there is new DNA. Mutations ARE changes in DNA. Changes in phenotype (appearance and function) are reflected by changed in genotype (DNA).

    people constantly try to prove the fact that mutations are beneficial over all, which is a bunch of lies.
    I have never, ever, ever, heard this alleged claim. I was taught that mutations are often fatal, and this is true. The fact is that a mutation changes a protein to work differently than it already does. Almost all of the time, this means it screws up, plain and simple. And if your proteins can't do their job, you die. Period. No such bunch of lies exists.

    Many use the sickle celled anemia case, where if a person has it in a malaria infested area, that it is beneficial. Correct me if i'm wrong, if you happened not to get malaria, is sickle celled anemia in any way... beneficial? Let's face the facts, mutations are not exactly beneficial, they are mistakes in transcription, "defective" from their original function, not complete. Adaptation is change in DNA, but this does not cause you to evolve at all, that is ridiculousness.
    Misinterpretation on your part, a very large one I might add. Evolution is by no means a drift toward perfection or supremacy at all. It is simply the process by which adaptation occurs. It is appropriate to the environment in respect to the animals in it. For example, polar animals have brown fur/feathers in summer and white fur/feathers in winter. This is adaptation for a holarctic climate. In South America, it would be more than useless, it would be suicidal.

    since evolution can go only one way, and not two at a time, i wonder which came first... male or female? if evolution created male first, we would have a lot of gay couples that have no way of reproducing, or was it female? i think i'm going to hear the excuse of we were asexual and gradually evolved into making a different sex in which they started screwing each other and all this crap...
    Um.... Gender is simply a method of performing meiosis, because having asexual reproduction is a less variable gene system. It produces clone "daughters" of the original.
    With meiosis, you get a much more versatile range of offspring, depending on the chromosomes recieved and which genes are more or less dominant in the fertilized egg. As far as one gender carrying children... You try splitting it in half and putting it together later. Totally impractical and foolish, hm?

    blah. I like to think about how a fish got lungs, that one serves a good laugh for me. I wonder how the hell, did a fish, out of RANDOM mutations (that don't get new genes) get lungs? i find that evolution is a force in itself, to guide an water breathing species to breathe... AIR? how? from what? how did it come up with the EXACT components of coming up with a lung? isn't that a bit farfetched?
    Don't understand it? Blame God I guess. That's a nice and easy way out. We did that with lightning and storms once too. There are numerous animals capable of breathing both air and underwater. It depends entirely on the environment. If you have a species living on the beach for thousands of generations, and it's too unsafe to stay on the sand all the time, and to unsafe to stay in the water all the time, the ones who have to do either will die off. The ones who evolve to do both have an advantage and live. That's what natural selection is all about. Adaptation, as you yourself said.

    I thought I remembered that things gradually become more chaotic, more disorder, not order. We have to admit, that without medicine and technology, we would be pretty screwed. Wouldn't our DNA get worse over years? would adaptation be able to keep up with it?
    DNA repairs itself during its routine activity.

    intelligence, if you ask me, there was a great leap from us and from what we came from. we have skyscrapers, computers, internet, cars, and all SORTS of stuff. You want to know the best thing our ancestors came up with? spearheads and cooking tools, and now they don't exist. And suddenly, we have such incredible intelligence to do awesome things, stuff that just would make a chimp crap in their pants, even though they mostly don't understand it.
    Homo Sapiens was always that smart. Newton was brilliant, but he couldn't work with theoretical astrophysics because there wasn't even calculus yet. So he invented calculus. Science, math, and progess, all expound on themselves over time.

    The brain itself can hardly be explained by modern experts, it's such a mystery, and yet, did intelligence really come out of... nothing? *shakes head* no no and no. You can see that humans are gifted with this intelligence over every other species... why? because that's how God created it.
    Leap of logic. You don't understand it so blame God. Once agian, easy way out.

    a 1% difference between speicies is an astronomically HUGE difference. We can't use the fossil field, because we don't have enough to fill the many holes in the chain. we don't see the gradual change, just different stages, but even then, there are many differences, differences that people don't mention.
    Fossils for all living things are not readily available. It's usually a freak accident that preserves the metal in a body that results in fossilization. Go dig up George Washington, I'm sure you'll find him well-preserved.

    I heard that there is a 3% difference between us and our ancestors.. people, that is a HUGE difference, BIG BIG BIG difference. People ask, "why do we have all the same type of DNA then?" Simple, without other animals and plants having DNA, where would be get our protein from to survive? when we eat a burger or some vegatables, we eat protein that will replenish our DNA.
    Misinterpretation of digestion. There is no direct DNA or protein transfer between species during consumption.

    What is the purpose of life?
    Why does there have to be one?

    Was it truly created out of nothingness and out of total randomness that somehow created a living world of species, what direction are we heading? was their a purpose in the creation of us? or is it truly random nothingness that created us and we have to make our own purpose to live? to what end i wonder? to the final destruction of them? i feel there was a definite direction, even in evolution, its direction too purposeful for SOMETHING.
    You want there to be purpose. That doesn't mean there is one.

    if we won't exist after some thousands of years, then what's the point in the end when it will just end? Are you people telling me, that we were created by some random series of events and somehow got here? Is that it? We only have about 100 years to live in this life, only to pass by as if it is nothing? Think about it people, you only have 100 years of life, and then.. you are gone forever. to be forgotten, to be nothing, to be a lost thought.
    Don't like it? That doesn't mean it's untrue.

    I feel there is a big purpose of us being here, there IS a reason why we are here, we are not just creatures here to exist and bump into each other, we are headed into a direction for a reason. Evolution is the biggest hog wash ever created, this post is nothing, i can come up with so many more specific questions to NO end. It just doesn't work, i'm sorry.
    More wrong and misunderstood examples. Bring em on :D

    All in all, I believe that we are here for a purpose, we are here because of a Creator (I chose to believe that it is God). I think that there is an afterlife, something out there that we cannot grasp. Don't you find it amazing that scientists dedicate their lives to have knowledge of how we got here, and come to no avail, to no conclusion?
    It leaves a good probability that nothing exists. We do not manipulate our data to get desirable results.

    why are there so many question and so little answers in life? Life was not meant to be understood, it's merely because God created it. People try to explain God with logic, when logic in itself is an observation of something we see, that we can touch, taste, hear, and smell. How can people come up with "logical" conclusions when God in himself is not observable and testable?
    Because it leaves the possibility that he's in your imagination, and that must be considered, because NOTHING ELSE defies logic.

    People spend years on knowledge and never help the world, we have so many people living on streets, and we see them every single day of our lives and pity them. Yet, not a one of them, stops to even help this person. We have people dying everyday in front of us, and we cannot even go up to them and buy them lunch. It would mean the WORLD to a homeless person for us to just come up and say "hi." because we acknowledged them. People cannot survive without "love." Love is such a strong emotion, and without it, people die. Without love, there is only hate, and as wise Yoda said: "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering..." Hate leads to death, people die of loneliness because no one said a word to them, no one cared enough about them.
    This is trailing off from evolution to societal conditions. The human social condition is a mess, and people who are not deemed valuable are stepped on. Period. It's a conflict of human nature to both help people and compete with them. That's why there are both kinds of people, and people who are confused about being both.

    God saw that we were dying in sin, and God sent a Love, a Son, to come and die for us on a cross, so that we wouldn't die. The ultimate sacrifice, Jesus took all the sins of the world, and conquered death on the cross. The wages of sin is death, yet God loved us so much, that he sent his only begotten Son, so that we may be saved through him and not perish. We are faced with a decision to accept this gift of life, a ticket to heaven, and people reject it everyday, blaming God for every bad thing that happens to us. God realized that without love, we would die, with HIS love, he made a way for us to live. You may not believe me, but i can see it when i look in the stars, i can see it in the trees, in people, i see God (not literally people). I see his power, his glory, his creation, do you people think you are here for no reason than to just live out a hard working life that will have no overall effect? You people are misled by your logic, and it blinds you to believe in nonsense. I believe that everyone has a purpose, i believe there was an intent behind our creation.

    This is what I believe.
    Because it gives you an answer you WANT to a question IT ASKS. This religion is designed to make you feel all sorts of nice things that may or may not be true, and you get to call them absolute because of the Big Brother idea. To complicate things, the notion of God being omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent is CONTRADICTED by the very defense mechanism that you cannot understand it. Therefore you cannot know if it's even true.

    That's what I know.
    Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
    Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
    What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    Fyshy would give ya rep for that, but it seems I have to spread it around some first...

    Anyway, nice post.
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    I have one basic argument, Shadow Knight, against your theory of god. Quite simply, you noted that god was eternal and timeless. He was not bound by the time constraints of man. The odd thing to me, if such a god exists, why would he make such a concern over creating such strict laws of physics (space and time). If we sprang from his image, why did he saddle his image in such a unique cage? It is illogical and requires too much supposition to make any sense. It would be akin to a infant having an abstract thought. Without language, how would an infant frame such a thought? Without the concept of time, doesn't it seem odd that your god developed an entire system around this previously undefined concept?

    In essence, you can BELIEVE in whatever you wish. Attempting to PROVE your beliefs may be an attempt at futility. Your beliefs are based on faith. That is fine. I have noted several times my respect for people who possess faith. Science need not collide with religion. They cover two separate realms. Debate what you can prove. Know what you believe. Think what you believe you can prove.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  15. #15
    Oscillate
    Guest

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    Science need not collide with religion. They cover two separate realms.
    They can cover two separate realms. It depends on how a person views religion. Many view it as all encompassing, and especially those who follow the Bible strictly. There is a clash between science and religion if you believe God created the Earth (ie not the universe) and man as he/she is today, then there is a problem. Because of science' popularity, many are also interested in proving their religion, and with their claim of Jesus actually influencing life in our world, this could theoretically be at least somewhat proved.

    I am glad that Shadow Knight doesn't try to say that evolution is false. (I don't think he did at least ) However, we see a classic example of wanting to explain the unknown, and God is the perfect shortcut to "knowledge". There is a huge leap in logic from the part where he talks about DNA and when he arrives at the purpose of life. As has been pointed out, there isn't necessarily a purpose to our lives. I sense a strong need to be something, or someone. Shadow Knight also question why humans are much smarter than the rest of the animal kingdom. We are not separate from animals, but we have evolved (not as in evolution, but as in changed) differently from them because of our needs. We had to find other ways to get food because we weren't strong or fast enough to catch them with only our bodies. This forced us to start having to use our brains, and through survival of the fittest, the smartest people survived.

    We're definitely unique at the moment, because we have come so far that we care as much about more trivial stuff than surviving as a race (human race). This obviously increases our sense of being something, and it also makes us believe in something that is more powerful than ourselves. It is always nice to have someone look after you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    I have noted several times my respect for people who possess faith.
    I would also like to express my respect for people who possess faith, and I have the most respect for people who are able to combine both their religions and science. I know some people still believes that every word in the Bible is the truth (not interpreting it), and that seems weird to me. When there is a conflict between science and religion, what is most backed up by proof and seems more logical?

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    Ibelsd - if a Creator God exists, science and God cannot be seperated concepts. If God is the Creator, then science is His creation. I believe that conflicts over religion are largely down to errant thinking and understanding on the part of both theists and atheists alike.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  17. #17
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    Fyshy would give ya rep for that, but it seems I have to spread it around some first...

    Anyway, nice post.
    ;?

    *feels unappreciated*

    :(

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    1,326
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    Fyshhed, I'll get to your post soon, my head hurts at the moment, and I'm tired, don't worry, i'll post soon.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    I haven't read your entire post because you tripped a huge pet peeve of mine in your first paragraph.

    Evolution is concerned with living things. Period.

    If it's a rock, evolution doesn't apply. Evolution doesn't tell us how life originated or how rocks / planets / stars got to be where they are and how they are now.

    Evolution tells us how life becomes other life.

    That's it. That's as far as it goes.

    Now, what theists and non-theists are guilty of is pushing evolution past its logical conclusion.

    Evolutionist: "... and in conclusion, that is how we know men came from apes or ape-like organisms."

    Theist: "So, then you're denying that god created man. Very nice. Where do you..."

    Evolutionist: *interrupting* "I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that men are evolved from ape or ape-like creatures. If you want to read more into it than that, then you're putting words into my mouth."

    Meditate upon this as I wade through the rest of your post.

    I think you are quite wrong here, I used simple reasoning to come up with my conclusions, I just don't believe just to believe.


    1) You are presented a re-worded watchmaker argument.
    I'm too stupid to understand, ehhh, could you please explain?

    2) The universe is NOT finite. Your understanding of what is meant by the statement "The universe is expanding" is highly flawed. Scientists have based this statement on observation of PHYSICAL MATTER. It means that stars, as near as we can tell, are moving "outward". We state this because we can only MEASURE stars because they're the only things that give off enough energy to be seen at great distances.* So it is the case that "the universe is expanding" is a bit of a misnomer. It is the case that the STUFF inside the universe is moving away from other stuff in the universe.
    How do you know that it isn't finite? I've heard many theories of the universe, and most people believe that the universe is expanding, so, we have another scientific mistake? How can you be so sure that this universe just might be limited. Everything that I see that physically exists, is limited in some fashion or form.

    The universe is very much infinite... and it doesn't speak much about your god if he can't get it together to create infinity
    When it comes to physics, at least in my opinion, there is no such thing as infinity, that's the way physics works. God is infinite, but when he creates physical creations, they are quite limited because they are not metaphysical.

    In the mortgage business, this is what we call a HUGE logical leap. You were going along shakily with some flawed definitions but you were at least internally consistant. You were building on statements regarding the universe, it's formation and "size" and suddenly we jump to "car rust"??? Sorry, hoss, but that doesn't hold water.

    Entropy is a naturally occuring phenomenon. We have a pretty solid understanding of why it happens and we can even measure how it happens.

    You stating the second law of thermodynamics is proof of god is akin to me stating that lightning is proof of Thor and we both know that's not the case.
    actually, I was building up an upcoming argument for what i had to say next, I'm not exactly using that as proof of God's existence.

    You're looking at diseases on a modern day level and superimposing them onto our ancestors way of life.

    Do you know what humanity's single most powerful defense against disease was prior to the invention of agriculture?


    Isolation.


    If a member of a tribe of pre-agricultural humans got sick with something that could wipe out a tribe, it wiped out a tribe... but ONLY that tribe. Likewise, we have silly ideas today about treating our sick and caring for them. If you were alive about 10K years ago, if someone in your tribe got sick enough, they probably got left behind.

    Consider AIDS. If AIDS had hit even as recently as 2000 years ago, the only people it would have threatened would have been the Romans because they were the only folks doing a lot of traveling and interacting *ahem* with one another in their travels. If we introduce AIDS into a tribe of a couple dozen humans living in caves using stone tools who does it kill? It kills the person who contracted it, his/her mate and their children.

    That's it.

    Even if the virus spread to the ENTIRE tribe, then it would just wipe out that tribe.

    So, yes, ShadowKnight, disease has always been with us. And no, we didn't survive it. I'm sure Influenza killed scores of humans before the time of agriculture ever begun. We survived as a species because we were too spread out and isolated to spread the really nasty ones.

    Today, we have mass travel. We have THOUSANDS of people coming into contact with one another. We have global commerce... tens of thousands of people traveling the globe at any one time. THAT'S why we have diseases spreading... because WE'RE spreading and interacting like never before.

    Consider the influenza outbreak during WWI which killed more people than bullets, artilery and poison gas of that war combined. Do you think the disease would have been nearly so "successful" without huge populations of soldiers traveling all over while carrying the disease?
    Don't you think our immune systems would be regressing as well? as well as our defense against them? Over time we should be getting weaker and weaker, not stronger and stronger, genes get worse, not exactly better. We have diseases, new mutations and all sorts of junk that we've never seen before, there's such a spread of disease now more than ever, not simply because of interaction, but because disease is growing, practically at an exponential rate.

    This would be a valid paragraph if human beings weren't 99% identical genetically to chimpanzees.

    'nuff said.
    and yet, you can see the distinct differences between a chimpanzee and humans, Zhav, you realize that 1% is such a HUGE difference? Without even checking DNA, I can see huge differences, if you can't, then we shouldn't continue this argument further.

    Actually, you're partially right.

    What is the case is that theists have fixated on attaching "survival of the fittest" to "evolution". The idea of evolution is NOT positive mutations are kept while negative ones die out. The idea of evolution is that mutations HAPPEN. Period. Some are good. Some are bad. Some just happen. However, the flaw in your argument is that not all negative mutations yield the death of a species. Sometimes, a species gets a mutation that isn't good or bad... it just is.

    Consider for a moment the Cheetah. The cheetah can run at nearly 70 miles per hour. We could point to that and say, "Wow, now THAT is a positive adaptation. Look how positive and amazing that is!" Well, it is and it isn't. Sure, the cheetah is fast, but it also has many limitations.

    1) It can't corner. Nothing can outrun the cheetah, but most gazelles that it hunts can turn on a dime.

    2) It can't breath. When the cheetah runs at full speed it holds its breath. So, the amount of time it can spend running is HIGHLY limited and when it's done running it has to spend a good amount of time resting... or it dies.

    3) This one is the most important. As a runner, the cheetah has ZERO room for extra body fat on its body. This means it's REALLY lousy at storing food... which means it HAS to eat about every other day or, well... it dies.

    Still sound like a great adaptation? There's every indication that cheetah numbers were dwindling in Africa BEFORE we started whiping away their territory.

    The point is that a lot of adaptations that we point to as "beneficial" are simply our PERCEPTION. What one biologist looks at as a boon, another can look to as a bane.
    This supports my argument a bit, see how entropy affects us? everything is being affected, even our adaptation, adaptation has positives and negatives, mutations, on the other hand, are mistakes in DNA. Adaptations aren't mistakes, although they have their weaknesses. I hope that made sense, it sounds contradictory, i'll elaborate upon question.

    No, but nor is it harmful. Allow me to correct you.

    Sickle cell anemia is a recessive gene. You get one gene from your father and one from your mother. Each one can either be positive or negative.

    If you have two negative genes, then you don't have cycle cell anemia.

    If you have one negative gene and one positive gene, you're a carrier. You'll never in your life feel a single symptom of cycle cell anemia, but you're completely immune to milaria. Milaria is a disease that attaches to blood cells and carriers of cycle cell anemia have cells that milaria cannot bond to.

    If you have two positive genes, then you have full blown cycle cell anemia and some (potentially) serious health problems.

    So, being a carrier is actually pretty cool. So long as you don't give it to your kids, you can go to milaria infested areas of the world without worry of catching the disease and without ever suffering from the anemia.
    If you didn't know, I'm a carrier of anemia, not sure which type, but i got it. And it does have affects, i get tired easily, fatigued, pure lazyness, it may seem easy to others to conquer, and believe me, i have been trying, but the affects are still there. Anemia is not good... period, unless you attacked with malaria, other than that, it's a NATURAL bad effect.

    If we take this paragraph and make an analogy to geology what you've effectively done is picked up a pebble in your hand and said, "See! Look how small this is! How could this become a mountain!? Mountains are tall and this is just... just... TINY!"

    You're overlooking all the middle stages between fish and air breathing organisms.

    You're overlooking the fact that there are several species of single celled organisms capable of exchanging genetic material AND "budding" to reproduce their species.
    incorrect, according to my knowledge, a breed of a certain type of animal makes dogs, but you are talking about a totally big change over thousands of years, which is yet to be seen, although dogs seem very much the same as far as we can remember. The middle stages are places i like to call "missing links," there is no proof of these kind of things, i find it impossible to believe, no matter how long, a fish ever breathing air, how? explain how that happens to make a PERFECTLY functional lung?

    What the CENSORED are you talking about!?

    1) The stone headed spear is an incredibly advanced piece of technology. Don't believe me?

    Try making one.

    Better yet, try making one without first LOOKING UP how to make one. Make one from scratch that you can use to either

    a) hit something small enoughto eat.
    b) fend of something big enough to easily hit, but that can probably eat or stampede you.

    2) What the CENSORED do you mean they don't exist anymore? Of course COOKING TOOLS exist, hoss. This statement you've made is nonsensical. As for spears and such, we don't use them because we found other technologies to replace them. Like the fence. The fence is a pretty cool bit of tech. It keeps your dinner from running away so you don't have to keep hunting / stabbing it
    this is a joke. Compared to what Zhavric? compare making a spearhead to a microchip, wait! you first need a machine to create microchips, and the list goes on. You are going to compare the "genius" of spearheads to computers, television, phone communicate, the internet? try making an internet from scratch, how about that? our ancestors are no where NEAR to where we are. There is a BIG difference.

    Suddenly. Heh. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? There's no "suddenly" in evolution, hoss. Not even close. See, this is the problem that a lot of creationists have (particularly young-earth creationists). You don't have a sense of just how long of a time period we're talking about.

    Consider the fruit fly. It has a lifespan of about two weeks and mutations can be observed in one to two generations. Well, if we define a human generation as 15 years* then we've had One-hundred and thirty three generations since the time of Jesus. 35,000 years ago and we were already fabricating musical instruments... that's 2,333 generations of human beings JUST as human beings and the fact that we had the time and inclination to build a flute means that we'd already been around for a LONG time.

    You lack perspective, my desciple. Meditate upon this.
    Yeah, actually, it WAS sudden if you ask me. Look at our ancestors compared to us. See a HUGE difference in intelligence? i surely do. Read my reply above.
    "With His dying breath... He saved me, with His wounds... He healed me, with His life... He died for me, although I never met Him, He remembered... me."

    +++=][ShadowKnight][=+++

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowKnight
    [edit] gahh! sorry, posted early! i'm still making the post, please do not post till i'm finished! thanks!





    I think you are quite wrong here, I used simple reasoning to come up with my conclusions, I just don't believe just to believe.




    I'm too stupid to understand, ehhh, could you please explain?



    How do you know that it isn't finite? I've heard many theories of the universe, and most people believe that the universe is expanding, so, we have another scientific mistake? How can you be so sure that this universe just might be limited. Everything that I see that physically exists, is limited in some fashion or form.



    When it comes to physics, at least in my opinion, there is no such thing as infinity, that's the way physics works. God is infinite, but when he creates physical creations, they are quite limited because they are not metaphysical.



    actually, I was building up an upcoming argument for what i had to say next, I'm not exactly using that as proof of God's existence.



    Don't you think our immune systems would be regressing as well? as well as our defense against them? Over time we should be getting weaker and weaker, not stronger and stronger, genes get worse, not exactly better. We have diseases, new mutations and all sorts of junk that we've never seen before, there's such a spread of disease now more than ever, not simply because of interaction, but because disease is growing, practically at an exponential rate.



    and yet, you can see the distinct differences between a chimpanzee and humans, Zhav, you realize that 1% is such a HUGE difference? Without even checking DNA, I can see huge differences, if you can't, then we shouldn't continue this argument further.



    This supports my argument a bit, see how entropy affects us? everything is being affected, even our adaptation, adaptation has positives and negatives, mutations, on the other hand, are mistakes in DNA. Adaptations aren't mistakes, although they have their weaknesses. I hope that made sense, it sounds contradictory, i'll elaborate upon question.



    If you didn't know, I'm a carrier of anemia, not sure which type, but i got it. And it does have affects, i get tired easily, fatigued, pure lazyness, it may seem easy to others to conquer, and believe me, i have been trying, but the affects are still there. Anemia is not good... period, unless you attacked with malaria, other than that, it's a NATURAL bad effect.



    incorrect, according to my knowledge, a breed of a certain type of animal makes dogs, but you are talking about a totally big change over thousands of years, which is yet to be seen, although dogs seem very much the same as far as we can remember. The middle stages are places i like to call "missing links," there is no proof of these kind of things, i find it impossible to believe, no matter how long, a fish ever breathing air, how? explain how that happens to make a PERFECTLY functional lung?


    [edit] gahh! sorry, posted early! i'm still making the post, please do not post till i'm finished! thanks!
    I reccomend you read and consider my post and respond to those points, I already answered to where your logic and information are less than correct Try to keep in mind that natural selection is not a manual process, but the change over time that prefers more survivable traits, like the development of multiple breathing mechanisms when both environments can be called home.
    Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
    Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
    What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

  20. #20
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My thoughts on Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowKnight
    I think you are quite wrong here, I used simple reasoning to come up with my conclusions, I just don't believe just to believe.
    No. You've taken evolution and applied it to concepts to which it was never meant to reply. Think square peg, round hole. I will give you a comparable theistic example to how you have misused the concept of evolution:

    "Jesus said to love thy neighbor. Therefor, having sexual intercourse with the family that lives next to you is a pefectly Christian thing to do."

    Think that's an accurate extrapolation of Jesus' intention? No? Well it's comparable to the extrapolation you have made in attributing evolution to stuff that's not alive.


    I'm too stupid to understand, ehhh, could you please explain?
    The watchmaker argument is something like this:

    A man finds a pocket watch in the middle of a grassy field. He concludes that because of the complexity of the watch, it could not have formed "naturally" in the field. Someone had to have made the watch and left it there. The analogy is then made to the universe and everything in it as being complex or "watch-like" so there must have been a watch maker. This argument has many gaping holes in it.

    1) The universe is incomparable to a watch.
    2) The very watch in the field is the end result of countless hands having forged it together. Someone had to take the sand and make the glass for the face. Someone else had to make the tools and the furnace to heat the glass. Other people had to find the fuel for the furnace and cook the food for the people who are working the glass and furnace. That's at minimum five people and as many as a few hundred to "produce" just the glass face of the watch. We haven't even gotten to the metal bits.
    3) The watchmaker argument contradicts itself. It states that everything must have a maker, but then does a 180 and (for reasons it fails to back up) states that god is in some way exempt from this causality status.

    How do you know that it isn't finite? I've heard many theories of the universe, and most people believe that the universe is expanding, so, we have another scientific mistake? How can you be so sure that this universe just might be limited. Everything that I see that physically exists, is limited in some fashion or form.
    LOL. The only thing limited here is your understanding of what is meant when scientists mean when they say "the universe is expanding". What do you think they're basing that statement on, Shadowknight? Do you think they have a magic universe-wall detector that can see the end "wall" of the universe?

    What would be out there exactly... at the end of all the nothing is... something?

    Please.

    The scientists are basing their statements on what they can OBSERVE. That means they are talking about stars and groups of stars (galaxies). THOSE are moving outwards.

    When it comes to physics, at least in my opinion, there is no such thing as infinity, that's the way physics works. God is infinite, but when he creates physical creations, they are quite limited because they are not metaphysical.
    Would you care to expand on the scientific laws and principles that you've formulated this opinion on?

    actually, I was building up an upcoming argument for what i had to say next, I'm not exactly using that as proof of God's existence.
    Good. Let's move on.

    Don't you think our immune systems would be regressing as well? as well as our defense against them? Over time we should be getting weaker and weaker, not stronger and stronger, genes get worse, not exactly better. We have diseases, new mutations and all sorts of junk that we've never seen before, there's such a spread of disease now more than ever, not simply because of interaction, but because disease is growing, practically at an exponential rate.
    Disease changes and our immune systems change to counter the disease. I can say with confidence that there are millions of bacteria and viruses living in your body (mostly in your mouth). Disease changes and our immune system changes. Sometimes disease make a change our immune system can't deal with. Sometimes we can deal with it. Either way, any "design" that you choose to attribute to it is simply your perception superimposed over it. Also, the laws of entropy do not apply the way you have implied they do.

    and yet, you can see the distinct differences between a chimpanzee and humans, Zhav, you realize that 1% is such a HUGE difference? Without even checking DNA, I can see huge differences, if you can't, then we shouldn't continue this argument further.
    Shadow, I didn't want to make a big deal out of the paragraph I referenced because I felt it was your poorest showing. You've grabbed at a few key scientific principles, taken them completely out of context, mushed them together and called it a "conclusion". Microevolution is NOT survival of the fittest. It has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest says that, generally, the organisms with the best mutations survive, but that's not always the case. A lot of times, organisms with lousy or neutral mutations survive just fine. Also, what is "beneficial" is largely in the eye of the beholder.

    This supports my argument a bit, see how entropy affects us? everything is being affected, even our adaptation, adaptation has positives and negatives, mutations, on the other hand, are mistakes in DNA. Adaptations aren't mistakes, although they have their weaknesses. I hope that made sense, it sounds contradictory, i'll elaborate upon question.
    Entropy has nothing to do with it, you intollerable misenterpreter of things Zhavric says. You've somehow managed to fixate on entropy and you want very much to apply it to evolution, but it simply doesn't apply the way you want it to. Also, there is ZERO scientific or logical validity in attributing "mistake" or "weakness" to genetic mutation. They are CHANGES. That's all. Anything else is simply your percetion.

    If you didn't know, I'm a carrier of anemia, not sure which type, but i got it. And it does have affects, i get tired easily, fatigued, pure lazyness, it may seem easy to others to conquer, and believe me, i have been trying, but the affects are still there. Anemia is not good... period, unless you attacked with malaria, other than that, it's a NATURAL bad effect.
    LOL... let me get this straight. You're claiming that you're a carrier for a type of anemia, but you don't know which one?!? LOL THAT is funny.

    Cycle cell anemia is when your red blood cells are, literally, shriveled into little cycle-like shapes. They don't fit in capilaries that way. Other forms of anemia relate to iron deficiency. Once again, you've compared apples with oranges... not sure what TYPE of orange, but oranges lol.

    incorrect, according to my knowledge, a breed of a certain type of animal makes dogs, but you are talking about a totally big change over thousands of years, which is yet to be seen, although dogs seem very much the same as far as we can remember. The middle stages are places i like to call "missing links," there is no proof of these kind of things, i find it impossible to believe, no matter how long, a fish ever breathing air, how? explain how that happens to make a PERFECTLY functional lung?


    Unwrap yourself from this absurd notion that anything crawled out of the water with a perfectly formed lung. Something crawled out with gills that didn't need as much water to get oxygen. Slowly, over GENERATIONS, less and less water was needed for organisms to get oxygen into their blood. EVENTUALLY, you get land amphibians... then reptiles... and so on.


    this is a joke. Compared to what Zhavric? compare making a spearhead to a microchip, wait! you first need a machine to create microchips, and the list goes on. You are going to compare the "genius" of spearheads to computers, television, phone communicate, the internet? try making an internet from scratch, how about that? our ancestors are no where NEAR to where we are. There is a BIG difference.
    The difference is just somantics, Shadow. Each generation is just doing what the last one did: making do with what is available to them. Our ancestors had rocks, sticks, and each others. We have libraries, universities, and all sorts of other fancy inventions that our ancestors never had.

    Inventing the internet from existince computer technology is no more or less monumental than inventing a spear chucker from existing spear and stick technology. In fact, I would point to the spear as being far more pivotal to our existence. Let's face it: the net is, effectively, a toy. Sure, it helps us do business, but it's not up there with the wheel, the bow, the spear, and the plow as big time human inventions.

    Finally, the point I was making here is that there are a lot of other animals that use tools. The tools our ancestors made from sticks and stones were FAR more advanced than those of the other animals.

    Yeah, actually, it WAS sudden if you ask me. Look at our ancestors compared to us. See a HUGE difference in intelligence? i surely do. Read my reply above.
    You have mistaken knowledge with intelligence. Take the creator of the 32,000 year old flute that archeologists unearthed. If we had a time machine and we went back and abducted that 32,000 year old flute maker when he was an infant and gave him to a modern family to raise, he'd be just like any other person in this society. The major change that you're not understanding is KNOWLEDGE. The written word has changed a lot for human beings... but we've always been smart. Have you tried living in the wilderness for any length of time? Not so easy, is it? It takes a lot of wits and intelligence...

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution is not PROVEN
    By Apokalupsis in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: February 25th, 2013, 09:06 AM
  2. Evolution is false
    By Meng Bomin in forum General Debate
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: November 24th, 2011, 01:53 AM
  3. The Wisdom of "Dr." Kent Hovind
    By Dionysus in forum General Debate
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2004, 09:10 AM
  4. One Science Method
    By Montalban in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 1st, 2004, 11:44 AM
  5. Your Thoughts on McCain as Kerry's V.P.
    By kamakaze in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 25th, 2004, 07:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •