Evolution

Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
Location
Fryslân Boppe! The Netherlands
Sure I was going to leave it at that when we were going offtopic in the other thread,
however Hibiki had to break the rules and reply anyway ( secretly I yay'd ) and I'm sure Cucumba would love to defend his statements..
and so would I for that matter!

so here it is.

The theory of evolution,
discussion thread.

what's happened so far.

Saying we have nothing to do with global warning is a bit like the whole evolution debate.
Sure their is prove for it, sure all the facts are there, but some people just aren't willing to see it.
Don't even start me on evolution, that theory has just as many holes, so not willing to see it applies to both sides. There are no tranistory animals, they simply do not exist in the fossil record. There is no macro evolution, only micro, but that is not the point here.
Evolution works through mutation and addeptation.
Mutation hardly ever works, so if offspring are born which are weaker due too mutation.
if it's a planteater, it will probably be finished off by a hunter, because they scan for weakness.
If it's a hunter it will be unable to properly catch prey and will die of hunger and will most certainly be eaten by scavangers.

Meaning you'll hardly ever find any fossils.


however, if the mutation excels in something or is really similar to the original.
chances are it will survive and reproduce.
( example: people with blond hair for the similarity fact and the giraffe for the excelling fact.)
Blond haired/blue eyed people hardly differ from the rest of us so their genes could spread. ( The are actually all linked back from the same European person, nearly 1000 years ago )

Giraffes are a mutation from antelope-like mammal, they survived cause they had a food source not available most other animals thus were able to reproduce and create their own line.
at first their necks weren't that long, but due to addaptation they eventually got longer ( survival of the fittest as longer necked giraffes reproduced more because they had more food. those longer necked genes were passed on etc etc . )
this transgression has also been proven due too fossils so theirs your transitory animals!

a similar process happened with todays big cats.
they used to be bigger but due too their prey becoming smaller, so did they.
again this addeptations have been registered with fossils.


just because all the blanks haven't been filled in yet doesn't mean it's not true.
Also please don't use the argument that it just hasn't been found yet.
The same can be said for they way you think everything came to be.
Don't automatically lump me in with Creationisim. In your examples, a blonde human is still an ape. A giraffe is still a cloven hoof vegetarian mammal. TYPES don't change. There is no evidence of it. Micro evolution, exactly as you describe, is well founded. Natural Selection is also well founded. Macro evolution, where fish grow legs and become reptiles, is still very much in doubt and unsupported.

Am I missing something?

We do have evidence of macro evolution in the fossil records. Now yeah we don't have every single minute change documented but you can still look up the gradual change in creatures if you look them up. Ancient sea life that started moving in closer to shore, growing legs to walk in shallow waters, lungs to breath in places where there wasn't water flow, and then walking on land. It's all there.
now before posting, I'd like everyone to check their post to see if you wrote nothing that might insult someone else.

Were all old enough here to have mature discussions, and with that said.
GO!

To add to hibiki's post, Whales and Dolphins.
they took quite an unusual path.
Water > Land > Water
They still have some of their original legg bones hidden in their body ( Much like we still have a tail bone )
Not to mention the embryo's in the first few months are pretty much the same as a HUMAN baby!


Even though their still mammals, I do think this is a case of macro evolution.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Messages
9,707
Best answers
0
Besides if you discount evolution as wrong you have no way that creatures came out of the sea.

Unless you are trying to say that all of a sudden one day a baby fish had lungs and some legs.
 
Lost in space
Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
130
Best answers
0
the evolution was based on the capability of survival. relying on the standard condition such as the climate change and environments. and I do believe someone had push the first gear of evolution. any event would achive a different outcome. I believe some certain spacies like human had been chosen in the evolution. the human evolution might be achive by someone we dont know.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
Location
Fryslân Boppe! The Netherlands
the evolution was based on the capability of survival. relying on the standard condition such as the climate change and environments. and I do believe someone had push the first gear of evolution. any event would achive a different outcome. I believe some certain spacies like human had been chosen in the evolution. the human evolution might be achive by someone we dont know.
Actually, I don't know to much about your history with synth, but religion will probably play it's part in this thread.

removing it from the discussion would be unfair and biased, so as far as I'm concerned.
add your thoughts.

Just keep them friendly, nice and respectfull!
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
the evolution was based on the capability of survival. relying on the standard condition such as the climate change and environments. and I do believe someone had push the first gear of evolution. any event would achive a different outcome. I believe some certain spacies like human had been chosen in the evolution. the human evolution might be achive by someone we dont know.
Someone?

Like....

Columbo?

 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Messages
9,707
Best answers
0
Well religion really has nothing at all to do with evolution. It shouldn't even come into factor.

Evolution doesn't say anything about how life is created or anything close to religious. It just explains how you can go from single cell organisms in the sea to mammals on land.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
Location
Fryslân Boppe! The Netherlands
Well religion really has nothing at all to do with evolution. It shouldn't even come into factor.

Evolution doesn't say anything about how life is created or anything close to religious. It just explains how you can go from single cell organisms in the sea to mammals on land.
It's the discussion about the theory of evolution, not evolution it's self.
People who don't believe in this theory, or not fully.
usually tend to have a religious background.
you cannot remove these people from this thread otherwise we'd have no one to discuss it with.
( hope no one got offended by this :( )
 
brainfeeder
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 29, 2002
Messages
5,179
Best answers
0
Location
Florida
Everything is a religion or a theory that isn't completely believable... so, we either fight each other to prove anything for personal reasons, or to manipulate others.

I gaurantee so many aliens have came by this planet, watched 5 minutes of our news... and said, "**** this ****."
 
New Member
★ Black Lounger ★
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
4,628
Best answers
0
Personally I find evolution is one of the most plausable theories that explain why we're here today and how we've got here. It just makes a lot of sense to me, muscle structure and bone stucture is similar in most mamals, reptiles and such are almost a half way between fish and mamals in terms of structure in some cases. The fact that different dog breeds are man made designs is a good sign that the theory of evolution is on the right track.

I think we've come to the point though that our intelligence is the next step of evolution. New idea's are how we adapt now, since we've prettymuch learned to overcome the desire of "survival of the fittest" in terms of the fact that people now have cosmetic surgery, we're now starting to no longer have the quite same desire's in "mates", intelligence now can prevail instead of pure physical attributes, since the hunter gatherer aspect of life is now based on the size of pay checks rather than physical prowess.
 

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
Location
United States, Florida
I always look to the law of Conservation of Energy when contemplating evolution:

"Energy/Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change form."

Meaning that in order for something come into existence, it had to have changed from something else. It cannot be created from nothing nor can it be destroyed. It can only change from one form to another.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw-b270WZqU&feature=related
^Actually relevant


I definitely support evolution. I don't think it has the answers to everything, as Stan explained in South Park, "Evolution explains how, but doesn't explain why" or something like that. There's no way I can accept (fathom, yes) the idea that humans just simply appeared.

Of course, Disney's Fantasia is all the evidence I need for evolution.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
Location
Fryslân Boppe! The Netherlands
I fully agree with that.
For me too, evolution is a how, not a why.

it explains jack**** how the atoms were made off, ever came into excistance in the first place!
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Messages
9,707
Best answers
0
It's the discussion about the theory of evolution, not evolution it's self.
People who don't believe in this theory, or not fully.
usually tend to have a religious background.
you cannot remove these people from this thread otherwise we'd have no one to discuss it with.
( hope no one got offended by this :( )
I mean that in the sense of "Evolution is wrong because it disproves God and I don't accept that"

So a religious reason for saying evolution is wrong makes no sense because evolution doesn't say anything to contradict that. As just said evolution says how not why.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
I am not saying that creationism is the answer because evolution is false. I am saying evolution is terribly flawed, and no one has thought of a better answer. As far as Macro Evolution being observed, there is no fossil record of transitory animals. The most often sighted are dinosaurs having feathers. As far as I know it, all of the feathered species were either primitive birds themselves, or became modern birds through micro evolution. I say this is a case of micro evolution because those dinosaurs had similar bone structures to birds, and they appear to have had warm blood. The type did not change, a lizard did not become a bird, and all of the lizard hipped dinosaurs have dissapeared.

Concerning the "vestigal" bones in marine mammals, they do have an acutal funtion that is not at all related to legs: they anchor the genitals in place for copulation. This isn't even remotely a use for them in previous creatures. I contend again that this is not evidence of anything macro, a type did not change. It was always a marine mammal, and even those from millions of years ago appear to have had similar structures to the ones we see today.

Another point of contention is the flaws in radio carbon data, and I'll get to that later.
 
brainfeeder
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 29, 2002
Messages
5,179
Best answers
0
Location
Florida
Well, the creationism attack on carbon dating is that it's circular reasoning.

We use the fossils to date the rocks, and the rocks to date the fossils.

That is so retarded.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Messages
9,707
Best answers
0
Well, the creationism attack on carbon dating is that it's circular reasoning.

We use the fossils to date the rocks, and the rocks to date the fossils.

That is so retarded.
Yeah it sounds retarded when you say it like that but if you actually go by how it's actually done it isn't retarded and makes more sense then saying it's wrong just because. Index fossils are pretty clear cut in showing when certain things were living together.

As for cuc you always say things like "evolution is terribly flawed" and "you'll get to it later" but you never do.


You don't even need to look at dinosaurs or carbon dated things for evolution. Trilobites and Cambrian life follow a pretty straight forward evolutionary pattern into the later ages.
 
Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
1,037
Best answers
0
@Cuc
I'm really want to know what you think about how the species of earth came to be,
since you think evolution is too flawed to be applied, and don't believe in creationism either.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think evolution (in the sense of the modern synthesis) is the most correct theory today, until someone describes the whole
process of speciation in a better way.
Macro evolution isn't as crazy as it sounds, it's just a lot of micro evolution.
e.g. the archaeopteryx of course already had several bird features, but it also had a lot of reptile features.
And if you put him "out of context" it seems impossible that it just developed feathers and stuff.
If you look at it's ancestry, you see that they slowly developed lighter bones, and modified hips and the other traits.

To the whale thingy:
That their "leg bones" still have a function doesn't disproofproof that they're remains of terrestial mammals.
It's the reason why they didn't disappear completely.

As for missing intermediary animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
Was one of the first terrestial vertebrates. It didn't have legs yet, just "strong" fins that somewhat enabled him to crawl from pond to pond.

There are other things that make evolution the most plausible theory today.
Ontogeny (the development of an individual) reflects phylogyne (the development of the species).
Looking at the embryonal development of an individual of a species is like looking at the evolution of the species in fast forward.
e.g. Frogs show that clearly. Tadpole can only live in water, while the frogs themselves ofnten live solely on land.
It shows that frogs as amphibians developed out of fish, and during embryonal development
they undergo a fish like state.

Lastly the problems religious people have with evolution (or sometimes science in general).
Science in general tries to describe the world empirically. It says how things work, not why they exist.
There are some people/scientist who use science to say "god can't exist".
Or religious people who say "it wasn't described that way in the bible, science must be trying to prove god wrong".
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
Yeah it sounds retarded when you say it like that but if you actually go by how it's actually done it isn't retarded and makes more sense then saying it's wrong just because. Index fossils are pretty clear cut in showing when certain things were living together.

As for cuc you always say things like "evolution is terribly flawed" and "you'll get to it later" but you never do.


You don't even need to look at dinosaurs or carbon dated things for evolution. Trilobites and Cambrian life follow a pretty straight forward evolutionary pattern into the later ages.
You have seen my arguments, so why you are saying this is beyond me. I do get to it later.

You can only accurately carbon date to a few thousand years. Again, laws of algebra, you can't solve for two variables. They aim to know the rate of decay, but they can't know how much carbon 14 was in the animal to begin with. They assign dates to the strata to overcome this, but they assign dates off of the carbon decay tests to do so. It IS as stupid as synth says. Don't get me wrong, carbon dating is usefull for dates within that time frame, but once you start going back 60,000 years or more you can no longer satisfy basic scientific fact. It's a good theory, but it is unprovable.

A great example of this is Mount Saint Helens, if you were to apply radio carbon data from the trees buried in the mudslides and pyroclastic flows, the top halves of the trees would have died in the jurassic period, and the roots would have died sometime in the last 10,000 years. A live Nautilus shell once carbon dated to 50,000 years old. Obviously impossible.

@Cuc
I'm really want to know what you think about how the species of earth came to be,
since you think evolution is too flawed to be applied, and don't believe in creationism either.
I don't have a better theory. While I am religeous, I'm also scientific by education. I studied Computer Science in both trade school and college. While physical sciences are not earth sciences, I would like to think that this gives me enough discapline to not automatically buy into hocus pocus. I challenge anything that sounds unreasonable. Evolution sounds as unreasonable as God just making all the animals of the earth in one day. Neither one has anything but popular support.

e.g. the archaeopteryx of course already had several bird features, but it also had a lot of reptile features.
And if you put him "out of context" it seems impossible that it just developed feathers and stuff.
If you look at it's ancestry, you see that they slowly developed lighter bones, and modified hips and the other traits.
You forget that I see theropod dinosaurs as the same type of animal birds are. They have similar bone structures, and possibly shared other important traits, like feathers and warm blood. I think this is micro evolution of a type, not macro evolution of a lizard to a bird. Archaeopteryx is a good example of evolution taking data out of context and calling it proof: many scientist agree that this creature was not the ancestor of modern birds.

To the whale thingy:
That their "leg bones" still have a function doesn't disproofproof that they're remains of terrestial mammals.
It's the reason why they didn't disappear completely.
You're right, that they are not leg bones does. But this debate could go either way for quite some time.

As for missing intermediary animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
Was one of the first terrestial vertebrates. It didn't have legs yet, just "strong" fins that somewhat enabled him to crawl from pond to pond.
It looks like a salamander. It, in the wiki link you provide, is even called an amphibian. It does not have gills, it has lungs. It is not a transitory animal in my opinion, it is an early amphibian that clearly represents an early salamander.

My favorite part is when they say it developed from the Sarcopterygii class, when there is clearly one of this class still alive in the oceans unchanged. If it was so beneficial to mutate legs, then how did the entire species not do so?

A major problem with evolution lies with this idea of massive mutation to cause macro evolution. The genetic coding required to make legs out of fins, for instance, would requrire massive resequencing. Forget the fact that this would only work in egg laying animals, an animal carrying a mutation of that degree in a live birth scenario would almost assuredly be treated as hostile by the mother's immune system. Forget that even if you got such a mutation, and it was beneficial, what are the chances of such a mutation happening twice? What then are the chances of those two organisms being the appropriate sex? How about the two of them being in the same breeding area? Meeting up and actually procreating? How does the species survive having less than the population needed to not genetically collapse due to cousin lovin'?

These are the questions that plague me when I try to accept evolution as fact. It doesn't satisfactorily solve any of them.

Darwin was a genius, and I beleive that Darwin was right about natural selection. The french guy who tacked macro evolution to the theory, his name escapes me at the moment, had very little to back his claims.

There are other things that make evolution the most plausible theory today.
Ontogeny (the development of an individual) reflects phylogyne (the development of the species).
Looking at the embryonal development of an individual of a species is like looking at the evolution of the species in fast forward.
e.g. Frogs show that clearly. Tadpole can only live in water, while the frogs themselves ofnten live solely on land.
It shows that frogs as amphibians developed out of fish, and during embryonal development
they undergo a fish like state.
This is also used as an example of intelligent design, so the argument works for both. The same creator would use similar methods to create all of his creatures, thus in the embryonic state they are similar. It works as an argument for both, so it can't be leveraged for one side without leveraging it for the other.

Lastly the problems religious people have with evolution (or sometimes science in general).
Science in general tries to describe the world empirically. It says how things work, not why they exist.
There are some people/scientist who use science to say "god can't exist".
Or religious people who say "it wasn't described that way in the bible, science must be trying to prove god wrong".
As I stated earlier, I'm a scientist and a christian. I keep my mind open both ways for logical arguments that fit. Creationism doesn't sit well with me, nor does Evolution. I'm hopefull that people will stop barking up the wrong trees and actually look for truth.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
Evolution sounds as unreasonable as God just making all the animals of the earth in one day. Neither one has anything but popular support.
Why does evolution sound unreasonable, but natural selection does not? Natural selection is part of evolution. Let me explain:

There's a race of plant-eating animals. One day, due to random errors in DNA replication (a "mutation"), one of these animals becomes much more able to acquire its food. As a result, it's able to more reliably survive harsh times, can grow bigger (due to more food consumption) and becomes more attractive as a mate.

Let's say this mutation affected a dominant gene, meaning it would be passed with almost 100% dominance to its children. This animal's family would have a clear-cut advantage over the previous general populace. This is natural selection, right?

Over the course of numerous advantageous (or not, almost all genetic mutations are either unhelpful or non-harmful) genetic changes, we say the species has evolved.

DiebytheSword said:
My favorite part is when they say it developed from the Sarcopterygii class, when there is clearly one of this class still alive in the oceans unchanged. If it was so beneficial to mutate legs, then how did the entire species not do so?
This advantage that the new form of the species has doesn't mean that the previous populace will die out, because it clearly had the ability to survive beforehand. If the two populations seperate, both can flourish. But, if the genes are dominant, due to interbreeding, all (or nearly all) will eventually gain the new genetic material.

Darwin himself documented numerous types of birds that had evolved differently due to being isolated on different islands. He tried to identify a common ancestor.

DiebytheSword said:
A major problem with evolution lies with this idea of massive mutation to cause macro evolution. The genetic coding required to make legs out of fins, for instance, would requrire massive resequencing. Forget the fact that this would only work in egg laying animals, an animal carrying a mutation of that degree in a live birth scenario would almost assuredly be treated as hostile by the mother's immune system. Forget that even if you got such a mutation, and it was beneficial, what are the chances of such a mutation happening twice? What then are the chances of those two organisms being the appropriate sex? How about the two of them being in the same breeding area? Meeting up and actually procreating? How does the species survive having less than the population needed to not genetically collapse due to cousin lovin'?
This is a common, fallacious argument used against evolution. "How could something as fantastic as the Eye, in which parts are dependent upon each other, spring into being?"

The answer is that the species didn't just transform. While an eye is incredibly complex, how did it come into being?

Imagine a simple single-celled organism that can only sense its surroundings by touch. Now imagine its offspring undergo a rather significant mutation; it becomes able to sense either heat or light. Then, after an unknown period of time, another mutation occurs: it's even better at detecting light. Maybe it can detect motion--currents or waves of water.

Then after that, different colors of light. And after countless mutations and untold eons, the organism has an "eye" that is able to see as we do. The same thing goes for the fins-->feet. Maybe a species of fish mutated and needed more oxygen, so had to live closer to the surface. Another mutation--they need so much oxygen, they have to live at the very surface. Another mutation causes one to need to leave the water entirely.

Or, like we've seen--amphibians which can survive in both. There are plenty of possibilities. Fossils are few and far between; but natural selection, and evolution itself, have been verified in countless ways. You may disagree with how exactly any given creature came about, but the fact that species evolve through natural selection isn't disputed in the scientific community.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom