Rabid Potatoe
Master Knight
There are missing links between one and two, as no one can be bothed to count to infinity. Doesn't mean you can't get from one to two. Yes, I know this simily is flawed.
Evolution or Creation?
- Thread starter DaLagga
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Master Knight
That's abiogenesis, which no one claims to fully understand. (apart from creationists.)Llew2 said:Yes, don't you know that they took a piece of slime and evolved it all the way into a living, breathing, organism in the span of one lifetime?
Although living is probably not the right word, breathing certainly not and 'span of one lifetime'? I doubt it.
The first 'living' things were probably self replicating patterns of molecules, and it would have taken a hell of a long time to produce anything we might think of today as a living, breathing organism.
The term 'missing link' is a bit strange. Every single animal that has ever been alive is a missing link. Which might be why we're missing some.Llew2 said:
The point at which on species changes into another is a bit vague. Lions and Tigers can breed together but are different species.
Some species of butterfly are identical in appearance and anatomy yet cannot breed. Perhaps some species have diverged in human memory, but are you going to test all of them?
How are you going to judge what is and is not divergance?
The fact is, that the divergance is merely an accumulation of enough 'adaptions' to be judged significantly different to the creature they were before. In other words - 'Microevolution' is 'Macroevolution'. One is merely the extension of the other.
You might say that evolution requires some faith. You might even be right. But it only takes the same amount of faith as believing in gravity or thermodynamics.
For some reason nobody seems to be questioning those.
And 30 billion years? You need to check out your dates. The earth is only around 4.5 billion years old.
The Labrador is technically a different species from the Chihuahua. There's roughly three thousand micro-organisms, bacteria and single celled organisms which have been studied and proven to move through species.Llew2 said:
To answer your point, our local Indian has taken to using unbranded Curry Powder rather than the Blackwells stuff they used to have, so that's that shot out of the water
Um, yeah it does. Unless you also deny the 19th century happened, since all we have proving that is a bunch of left overs too.
Yoshiboy
Count
Llew2 said:Yes, don't you know that they took a piece of slime and evolved it all the way into a living, breathing, organism in the span of one lifetime?Yoshiboy said:
What? You're saying that because evolution hasn't happened in my lifetime before my eyes I can't believe it. You're wrong in two senses here.
First of all there are examples of evolution which I've been witness to, most notable the hundreds of virus and micro-organisms that evolve constantly. Remember Bird flu? The worry there was that the virus would evolve so that it might affect humans. You're lucky most doctors do believe in evolution, or we might not have been aware of that danger and we might have all died
Secondly, you believe in a document written well before your time. Nothing in this book has happened within your life time yet you still believe it.
I believe that's called mutation. The flu is simply adapting so that it can stay alive - and that new climate just happens to be humans. A flu virus won't turn into a human, or even a mouse. Or even a flea, for that matter. It will always be a virus.
No, I'm saying that because I can't watch it happen in front of my eyes, I won't believe it. I have faith, but not that much.
I reserve the right to deny it if I please.
Alright, there is a reason for my believing that thinking, intelligent, emotion-feeling, memory possessing, learning humans did not just evolved out of a slime ball. That reason is simply that, as Lewis pointed out, we humans are creatures of both spirit and flesh. That is what separates us from animals.
If you think about for a little, you will remember that you never see the ghosts of animals, only people.
...Of course, if you don't believe in ghosts, then you can just ignore all that and call everyone who posted a ghost story a lier.
In seriousnses, I'd like to see what you have to say about:
Yoshiboy said:
Evolution is not a document. Evolution is a theory. That document you are referring to was made by a human; we have proof of that. And because it was made by a human, and it says something (i.e., it is not a theory), so I can believe it. I also reserve the right to be taken in by humans as I please.Redcoat - Mic said:
No, it's called adaption and is the key core of evolution.Llew2 said:
Quite incorrect on two counts.
Firstly, all organisms operate on DNA. DNA at a basic level is not fundamentally different between life forms, it does the same thing. At this basic level, all you need do to turn (for example) a mouse into a man is to alter the genetic sequence encoded on the DNA to that of the desired lifeform (to give an analogy, DNA is kind of like Windows, with the genetic sequence altering what application (species) you're running).
Secondly, Influenza is a virus, hence it's technically a wandering piece of DNA. It's already human, else it couldn't infect us
Flesh yes. Spirit hasn't been proven yet
Nonsense. Go look up Black Shuck, Barguest, Gwyllgi, two tailed white foxes, Geff the Mongoose and the Black Pig of Dublin.
Being as how that would be indicative of the supernatural, and as I've already stated we've yet to see any substantiated evidence for this
What part of Nihilist didn't you get?Ancientwanker
Master Knight
Llew, speciation is the branching of one species into two or more and even many creationists accept it today. You are arguing creationism circa 1975 which for some reason is still floating around the internet.
Here is the creationist site AIG actually promoting the idea of new species being created.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2006/07/21/speciation-it-can-occur-quickly/
Here "no new species" is listed as an argument that a creationist shouldnt use:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
At some point many creationists decided they couldnt fight the idea of speciation so they jumped on the bandwagon. It's now proper for a creationist to argue that speciation is actually *required* by noah's ark as all extant species could not possibly have ridden on the ark. With every new case of speciation they trumpet it as evidence of the kind of hyper-rapid speciation they require if a few thousand biblical "kinds" on Noah's Ark were to result in the millions of species we see today in just 2-3 thousand years. Depending on the flood date.
Creationists will say instead that though new species are generated continuously they are not increasing their genetic information but are rather "devolving" from a more perfect form. This bleeds into the Intelligent Design movement which has pushed the idea of biological information and their contention is that it cannot increase, only decrease... But they can't convince anyone else of this as of yet as they havent managed to get a scientific theory together.
It's a just a semantics shell game to avoid the evidence but the important point here is that creationists do accept the creation of new species.
Here is the creationist site AIG actually promoting the idea of new species being created.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2006/07/21/speciation-it-can-occur-quickly/
Here "no new species" is listed as an argument that a creationist shouldnt use:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
At some point many creationists decided they couldnt fight the idea of speciation so they jumped on the bandwagon. It's now proper for a creationist to argue that speciation is actually *required* by noah's ark as all extant species could not possibly have ridden on the ark. With every new case of speciation they trumpet it as evidence of the kind of hyper-rapid speciation they require if a few thousand biblical "kinds" on Noah's Ark were to result in the millions of species we see today in just 2-3 thousand years. Depending on the flood date.
Creationists will say instead that though new species are generated continuously they are not increasing their genetic information but are rather "devolving" from a more perfect form. This bleeds into the Intelligent Design movement which has pushed the idea of biological information and their contention is that it cannot increase, only decrease... But they can't convince anyone else of this as of yet as they havent managed to get a scientific theory together.
It's a just a semantics shell game to avoid the evidence but the important point here is that creationists do accept the creation of new species.
Buxton
Count
Arch, he's slightly correct with mutation. Mutation creates variation - which leads to the better 'mutated' genus winning out, therefore the creature hasn't actually adapted in the way we use the word. Just lucky.
And for changing species, please do remember species is a loose term created by Carl Linnaeus grouping life with similar features together. It's not a full stop. If I had gills, would I be a fish?.
And for changing species, please do remember species is a loose term created by Carl Linnaeus grouping life with similar features together. It's not a full stop. If I had gills, would I be a fish?.
Then mutation is...?
Wait, I though it was Arch that just told me to go look up some ghosts.
Demons, probably.
I've yet to see it happen. Actually...it will be very interesting to see what happens.
To tell the truth I don't really go against the idea of new species being created, I just do not believe that Man is one of them. Evolution could very well be, and probably is the way God keeps animals on this earth, but all that business about the (specific) creation of man in the garden doesn't point towards the evolution of man himself. It is at that point in time that God starts talking to humans (specifically; he doesn't talk to animals), and humans become responsible for their actions.
EDIT: Thanks for the linkys AW, very good site.
Um, yes it hasBuxton said:
Evolution isn't sentient, it can't 'decide' to give a species gills, it can't 'decide' anything. A species will develop gills because ancestor X had proto-gills and managed to get laid a hell of a lot more than ancestors Y and Z. Adaption occurs as a side effect, since usually the reason an organism is a more successful breeder is because it can better utilise it's environment. Adaptation doesn't usually necessitate or imply a conscious change, if that's where the confusion was.
I was just going to say. Famous zoologist truism - the defining feature of a genus is usually whichever naturalist tripped over the organism.
Interchangeable. We usually use Adaptation to signify those mutations which didn't end up with a depressed sex life or cancer.
[/quote]
Atilladahun
Regular
Yoshiboy said:
But there is no good solid foundation, and if there was everyone would believe it, same as creation
scientists have not seen any evidence as far as literally an organism changing (i guess i could have used the word adapting instead) to its environment. so with this sense, evolution cannot be proved
But it the same as creation non-the-less...
No one was there the day God created everything
How many people do you know get a thorough education on the fundamentals of evolution? Quantum physics has a good solid foundation, but I bet you'd travel a long way to find a non-scientist who could tell you the slightest thing about it.Atilladahun said:
Well, a single organism wouldn't change while alive, that would get messy. Evolution occurs over generations, and we've got plenty of observational evidence for it. A large part of the medical field kind of relies on it for example.
Buxton
Count
Atilladahun said:
Yes they have, look at this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ronaldsay_sheep
And if you don't trust Wikipedia, google that name, or 'seaweed eating sheep'.
They adapted in two generations.
- Status
