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.
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?
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:In other words, no, they haven't. They have shown that things adapt, (note that word) but so far, nothing has changed from one spices into another. And no, finding fossils that are 30 billion years apart does not consist of evidence. I mean, they even admit there are missing 'links' in it. I'd say it takes a lot of faith to believe in that. Naturally I commend the scientists for their devotion.
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:In other words, no, they haven't. They have shown that things adapt, (note that word) but so far, nothing has changed from one spices into another.
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.And no, finding fossils that are 30 billion years apart does not consist of evidence.
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:Evolution has been proven, it requires no faith.
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.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
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.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.
I reserve the right to deny it if I please.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 said: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.
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:In seriousnses, I'd like to see what you have to say about:
Yoshiboy said: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.
No, it's called adaption and is the key core of evolution.Llew2 said:I believe that's called mutation.
Quite incorrect on two counts.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.
Flesh yes. Spirit hasn't been proven yetas Lewis pointed out, we humans are creatures of both spirit and flesh.
Nonsense. Go look up Black Shuck, Barguest, Gwyllgi, two tailed white foxes, Geff the Mongoose and the Black Pig of Dublin.If you think about for a little, you will remember that you never see the ghosts of animals, only people.
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?...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.
Then mutation is...?No, it's called adaption and is the key core of evolution.
Wait, I though it was Arch that just told me to go look up some ghosts.Flesh yes. Spirit hasn't been proven yet
Demons, probably.Nonsense. Go look up Black Shuck, Barguest, Gwyllgi, two tailed white foxes, Geff the Mongoose and the Black Pig of Dublin.
I've yet to see it happen. Actually...it will be very interesting to see what happens.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 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.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.
Um, yes it has 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.Buxton said: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.
I was just going to say. Famous zoologist truism - the defining feature of a genus is usually whichever naturalist tripped over the organism.And for changing species, please do remember species is a loose term created by Carl Linnaeus grouping life with similar features together.
Interchangeable. We usually use Adaptation to signify those mutations which didn't end up with a depressed sex life or cancer.Then mutation is...?
I've yet to see it happen. Actually...it will be very interesting to see what happens.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
I meant the spirit side.It will produce a man, simple as that. All DNA does is tell how many cells, what type cells, and which cells should divide and form together. It's really not as complicated as you think.
Yoshiboy said:Faith is defined by a belief in something that cannot be proved. The study of science uses logic, evidence and a naturalistic, scientific approach. On these basis, things can actually be "proven" within reason. Evolution has been proven, it requires no faith.
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:But there is no good solid foundation, and if there was everyone would believe it, same as creation
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.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
Atilladahun said: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.