im just curious, who here believes that evolution did not occur?

also, state if your beliefs do not stem from a literal interpretation of the bible.

8/2/2005 12:56:27 AM

bi-curious

am i right?

8/2/2005 1:02:24 AM

if this thread reaches 100 pages, ill post proof that evolution is false and the earth is 6000 years old

8/2/2005 1:12:40 AM

i was right

8/2/2005 1:30:25 AM

actually the earth does not revolve around the earth....if two objects are rotating with the same rotational velocity and both exist in the same space then a in relation to b and b in relation to a there is no net rotation or movement relative to one another

8/2/2005 1:47:54 AM

i have a hard time believing in evolution, at least in the form and at the level that it is taught (i.e., amoeba---human being). there are things about it that just don't make sense to me, not even counting the fact that it seems that the odds of things turning out the way they have by pure, dumb luck being almost nonexistant.

i also have a hard time believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible. hell, occassionally i question the validity of any parts of the Bible beyond the level of being an historical document. i pray and stuff, and i generally consider myself a Christian, but Christianity in its entirety is a lot for a scientific, engineering minded person to swallow when there's no hard proof of many of its major foundations (although there isn't really any hard evidence against any of its core beliefs, and there have been plenty of people who've tried to disprove it, including some who convinced themselves of the validity of the Bible in the process of setting out to disprove it.)



so there i go again, being a walking anti-stereotype.

8/2/2005 3:39:07 AM

^ well that's a misunderstanding of the term "dumb luck". The process of evolution is not inheritantley random (like the flipping of a coin), it is a process that in retrospect might look like it was "unlikley", but on closer inspection could not have turned out any other way.

8/2/2005 3:58:51 AM

adaptability? yes, absolutely.

full-on evolution? not completely sold, but not completely rejecting either

8/2/2005 4:39:12 AM

Quote :

"t is a process that in retrospect might look like it was "unlikley", but on closer inspection could not have turned out any other way."

hey wait, that's not completely right. many evolutionary trails started with random mutations that ended up being useful and therefore continued to be bred into the gene pool. Some of those definitely could have turned out another way, if the random mutation hadn't happened. Others probably couldn't have turned out another way, though.

8/2/2005 6:50:34 AM

not to mention events outside of 'evolutions' control changed its course over the lifetime of this planet.

8/2/2005 10:20:54 AM

Anyone catch the Family Guy where a doctor was explaining to Peter and Lois that Peter was actually retarded? The IQ chart he showed had a line for "normal", then one for "retarded", then underneath that there was a line labeled "creationists".

Thats sums up my feelings pretty well.

8/2/2005 10:25:51 AM

8/2/2005 10:47:46 AM

considering how ignorant we are about a lot of things

i would put people who rule out creationists

far below creationists on that chart

fucking idiots

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 10:50 AM. Reason : *]

8/2/2005 10:50:35 AM

considering how ignorant we are about a lot of things

i would put people who rule out [unicorns, ghosts, magic, boogeyman, tooth fairy, Santa Claus]

Furthermore, creationists are idiots

8/2/2005 10:55:12 AM

considering how ignorant we are about a lot of things

i would put people who rank others on a chart and sit on a high horse

far below creationists on that chart

fucking idiots

8/2/2005 10:55:20 AM

I'm not on a high horse

I'm just average, it's the creationists that are below retarded.

8/2/2005 10:56:27 AM

^ Well yeah, I was talking about the post above yours.

8/2/2005 10:57:23 AM

Quote :

"Furthermore, commureationists are idiots"

-----

Quote :

"The IQ chart he showed had a line for "normal", then one for "retarded", then underneath that there was a line labeled "creationists". Thats sums up my feelings pretty well."

Quote :

"considering how ignorant we are about a lot of things i would put people who rank others on a chart and sit on a high horse far below creationists on that chart fucking idiots"

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 11:00 AM. Reason : *]

8/2/2005 10:58:24 AM

OUCH

BURNED

8/2/2005 10:59:17 AM

considering how ignorant we are about a lot of things

i would put people who rule out communists

far below communists on that chart

fucking idiots


^^ When did I make a chart ranking anyone? I made a reference to a popular television show.

Damn son.

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 11:02 AM. Reason : .]

8/2/2005 11:00:52 AM

well that reply was just as valid as yours

^ that you then said you fucking agreed with

damn son

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 11:03 AM. Reason : *]

8/2/2005 11:00:55 AM

Quote :

"Thats sums up my feelings pretty well."

My feelings that creationism is not a very intelligent theory.

Nice try. Keep swinging.

8/2/2005 11:05:14 AM

Quote :

"hey wait, that's not completely right. many evolutionary trails started with random mutations that ended up being useful and therefore continued to be bred into the gene pool. Some of those definitely could have turned out another way, if the random mutation hadn't happened. Others probably couldn't have turned out another way, though."

The mutations themselves are random (sort of), but evolution itself is not at all random. The mutated organism may or may not gain a survival advantage from the change.

But a mutation doesn't have to be completely random. Keep in mind that genetic material is stored in a physical form. Chromosomes have weak points. Some areas are much more likely to mutate than others.

8/2/2005 11:11:19 AM

you used the chart as an example to show what you agree with. Implications are that you agree with the chart.

nice try, keep swinging

8/2/2005 11:12:50 AM

Quote :

"My feelings that creationism is not a very intelligent theory."

As such I don't agree with the theory, but I also don't agree that they are at a level below the mentally retarded.

So do you want to sit here all day playing semantics and thinking up implications?

Nice try. Keep swinging.

8/2/2005 11:22:21 AM

Evolution, all the way.

Evolution is pretty much the foundation of biology, it would be like someone trying to say the Laws of thermodynamics are wrong and try to make an 800% effecient engine.

8/2/2005 11:28:27 AM

Quote :

"The mutations themselves are random (sort of), but evolution itself is not at all random. The mutated organism may or may not gain a survival advantage from the change. "

right, I understand that. All I was saying was that

Quote :

"t in retrospect might look like it was "unlikley", but on closer inspection could not have turned out any other way."

was not entirely correct, because some evolutionary tracks COULD have happenend another way, had certain random mutations not happened. Not all random mutations take hold, but some do, and things still could have turned out differently if those particular random mutaions hadn't happened.

8/2/2005 12:11:02 PM

^^^ where have semantics come into it? All I see is you moving further away from when you said

Quote :

"Thats sums up my feelings pretty well."

Which means you put creationists below retarded.

want to back peddle anymore?

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 12:11 PM. Reason : *]

8/2/2005 12:11:05 PM

if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

8/2/2005 12:15:10 PM

this is great.

8/2/2005 12:18:09 PM

Quote :

"Which means you put creationists below retarded."

I will repost what I said in the hopes that your feeble mind will be able to grasp it this time.

Quote :

"As such I don't agree with the theory, but I also don't agree that they are at a level below the mentally retarded. So do you want to sit here all day playing semantics and thinking up implications? Nice try. Keep swinging."

Quote :

"want to back peddle anymore?"

No one is back peddling, I'm just trying to explain what I said to an individual who clearly cannot comprehend plain english.

8/2/2005 12:23:14 PM

^^^why are there still reptiles, birds, or amoebas for that matter?

last time i checked there was definitely more than one species on earth. if we evolved from one species then that species disappeared, we'd be the only living being on the planet...


[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 12:24 PM. Reason : ]

8/2/2005 12:24:33 PM

Quote :

"if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

I think the question that you are trying to ask is "why aren't there monkey-men in existence now?". Species survive if they have properly adapted to their environment, humans evolved at a time when enivronments were changing. Additionally evolution takes time to work the kinks, this causes it to work on a sort of plateau heirarchy. This is also what caused the disappereance of all other sorts of intermediatary species. You have to look at it as a "dotted" line. Only the dots work effeciently in the current environment.

8/2/2005 12:32:56 PM

Quote :

"if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Go find me a living homo habilis.

8/2/2005 12:34:07 PM

you know what fuck it, lets deal with the conversation at hand

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 12:56 PM. Reason : *]

8/2/2005 12:50:12 PM

one question i have is how, say, birds could possibly evolve? i thought about this the other day while out on the beach with seagulls flying around...

i understand how birds could, over time, evolve a very light bone structure, etc.

what i don't understand is how they could ever evolve wings. a bird-ancestor didn't just have a chance mutation one day and pop out some kickass wings. limbs would have to become more and more wing-like over a very, very long period of time. however, at every stage up until they became well-developed enough that they could actually be used for flight, wings would be not only useless, but a cumbersome liability. for that matter, the same could be said of their shitty little legs that are conveniently pulled up like retractable landing gear for good aerodynamics in flight, but suck for running, jumping, etc. there's no way i see for natural selection to drive evolution on those things.

***with the caveat that once a good set of wings was in place, the door would be open for the legs to become more evolved for flight.

and finally, there are so many things that have to be in place for wings to work well enough to fly AT ALL, it would take a PHENOMENAL number of chance mutations.


here's another thing...why wouldn't brain/nerve tissue evolve the ability to repair itself halfway effeciently? (nevermind the fact that it boggles my mind to consider a brain a product of chance mutations that happened to work out for the better instead of producing a retard).

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 1:06 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/2/2005 12:58:16 PM

and what would that be?

name calling?

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ^^]

8/2/2005 12:58:40 PM

Quote :

"if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

this is an interesting question though. Are there any species that you guys know of (because I dont and would like to) that exist, and whose prevous 'form' is still around?

8/2/2005 1:01:15 PM

Quote :

"hey wait, that's not completely right. many evolutionary trails started with random mutations that ended up being useful and therefore continued to be bred into the gene pool. Some of those definitely could have turned out another way, if the random mutation hadn't happened. Others probably couldn't have turned out another way, though."

-[user]Dirty Greek[/user]

You're misinterpruting what i ment. Like I said before, evolution is not a fundamentally random process, by which I ment that it is not a random process with no deterministic basis. For example, the flipping of a coin LOOKS random. If I flip a coin and it lands on heands, then I would be confident that I could not have predicted what side it would have landed on. But if we look closer, we see that given the way the flipper flipped the coin, the direction of the wind, the force of gravity, etc., the coin could not have landed any other way. IOW: given a certain set of conditions (the wind, gravity, flipping spped, etc.), a deterministic process will determine the outcome.

Evolution is really the same way, except a little more complicated. Given a set of conditions, the process of evolution could not have produced another outcome (that's really too strong of a statement) Your conception of mutations seem a little misinformed (or at the least not totally expressed), since mutations themselves are ussually not funadementally random. Mutations are ussually the result of modifications to genetic material according to the deterministic laws of chemistry and physics. Thus, if we were aware of the initial conditions we could see that a certain "random" mutation could not have not happened. So your complaint here would be unfounded.

Of course, like i said, in retrospect, my statement was a bit too strong, since not all mutations are determined by the simple laws of chemistry and physics. When the behavior of subatmoic particles become important for mutations (like mutations as a result of x-rays), then the probablistic laws of quantum physics come into play. In which case, your complaint might make more sense, but even then the nature of mutations are chaotic only probalistic.

But i think that really over complicates the point I was trying to make to Duke. The point is that evolution isn't a crap shoot. It's a process.

8/2/2005 1:06:31 PM

Quote :

"limbs would have to become more and more wing-like over a very, very long period of time. however, at every stage up until they became well-developed enough that they could actually be used for flight, wings would be not only useless, but a cumbersome liability."

Wings were probably first used for gliding moreso than actual flight. Wings did not immedately go to huge wingspans, they were first nothing more than webbed fingers and arms that could be used for gliding. It was a great deal farther along that they got feathers and huge wings and the ability to actually take off and fly indefinately.

Quote :

"their shitty little legs that are conveniently pulled up like retractable landing gear for good aerodynamics in flight, but suck for running, jumping, etc. there's no way i see for natural selection to drive evolution on those things."

Those evolved after they were able to fly. Moles didn't start out being blind, they gained that after being able to burrow and live underground.

Quote :

"here's another thing...why wouldn't brain/nerve tissue evolve the ability to repair itself halfway effeciently?"

Because immortality isn't evolutionarily adventagous. Not to mention the physical restrictions with that. Animals that live shorter lives are able to evolve faster. This is both a plus and a minus, but you can see how immortality causes us to lose the ability to adapt to our environment.

8/2/2005 1:17:30 PM

http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

My favorite is, My uncle is not a Monkey, he is a man named Steve!

8/2/2005 1:29:30 PM

theDuke866, there are flightless birds in the world. Obviously, they were an intermediate stage.

8/2/2005 1:41:48 PM

Would they be intermediate or could they have just branched off?

I just have a hard time seeing ostriches and penguins as intermediate stages. Obviously some evolution occured there to make them fit for their respective environments.

8/2/2005 1:45:37 PM

no, chickens and ostriches were birds that could fly but no longer need to. Intermediate birds would be more like a lizard or a mouse that can glide from tree to tree.

8/2/2005 1:45:52 PM

or a pigeon-rat.

8/2/2005 2:50:39 PM

this thread confirms my fear that no matter how many world events going on (which there are a shit load of), people are so bitter and enthusiastic about this topic that most people wont pass up the oportunity to call the other side on their respective alleged insanities whever given the chance

Quote :

"i have a hard time believing in evolution, at least in the form and at the level that it is taught (i.e., amoeba---human being). there are things about it that just don't make sense to me, not even counting the fact that it seems that the odds of things turning out the way they have by pure, dumb luck being almost nonexistant."

but seriously folks, most people who dont believe in evolution dont really undestand what science is. duke -- youve stated that some parts about evolution seem unlikely.

1. just becuase you dont understand it doesnt mean that the people who spend their lives studying it do

2. science doesnt require EVERY thing makes 100% sense. theories often undergo minor changes. their is much debate of the details of HOW organisms evolved (but no debate that they DID evolve)

3. just because one part doesnt make sense, doesnt mean that the whole must be false. scientific theories are broad instruments and their applications are quite nuanced. some current beliefs about the mechanism of evolution may in fact be wrong, again, as stated, that doesnt make teh grand theory itself, wrong

Quote :

"one question i have is how, say, birds could possibly evolve? i thought about this the other day while out on the beach with seagulls flying around... i understand how birds could, over time, evolve a very light bone structure, etc. what i don't understand is how they could ever evolve wings. a bird-ancestor didn't just have a chance mutation one day and pop out some kickass wings. limbs would have to become more and more wing-like over a very, very long period of time. however, at every stage up until they became well-developed enough that they could actually be used for flight, wings would be not only useless, but a cumbersome liability. for that matter, the same could be said of their shitty little legs that are conveniently pulled up like retractable landing gear for good aerodynamics in flight, but suck for running, jumping, etc. there's no way i see for natural selection to drive evolution on those things. ***with the caveat that once a good set of wings was in place, the door would be open for the legs to become more evolved for flight. and finally, there are so many things that have to be in place for wings to work well enough to fly AT ALL, it would take a PHENOMENAL number of chance mutations. here's another thing...why wouldn't brain/nerve tissue evolve the ability to repair itself halfway effeciently? (nevermind the fact that it boggles my mind to consider a brain a product of chance mutations that happened to work out for the better instead of producing a retard). "

again, just because you have reservations about these topics doesnt mean these issues havent all been ironed out.

given the millions of very very smart people who work in the area of biology, how is it you have the ego to claim these simple questions have not already been dealt with?




ONE LAST TIME:


EVOLUTION DOES NOT!!!

NOT!!!


NOT CLAIM THAT LIFE IS THE RESULT OF RANDOM EVENTS

it simply states that the mechanism by which speciation occured was thru random mutation, selection and procreation.

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 5:56 PM. Reason : -]

8/2/2005 5:44:30 PM

I really hate the word random. True randomness is just as much make-believe as 7 day creation.

8/2/2005 6:01:54 PM

theDuke866: How exactly do you feel like came to be? Do you just not hold an opinion?

^you don't know that (or if you do, how do you know?)

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 6:08 PM. Reason : 2]

8/2/2005 6:07:42 PM

I was taught that an evolutionary mutation is the result of a mistake in the copying of DNA from a parent to a child. This kind of thing happens all the time, but sometimes that mistake manifests itself in a noticeable way.

But the more I think about it, the more I wonder what exactly is a "mistake"? Anyone wanna lay some knowledge on me as to exactly what happens to cause mistakes in DNA copying?

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 6:10 PM. Reason : uh-oh guys, lets not get into determinism AGAIN]

8/2/2005 6:09:39 PM

If you simply look at it as amoeba to man, then yes, it does appear to be blind luck. However, when you realize that there were tens of thousands or millions of mutations that ended up as dead ends along the way and that man is the result of a string of mutations that gave each creature along the way that small edge it needed to survive, then it doesn't look anything like dumb luck.

8/2/2005 6:13:24 PM