Evolution

[Corsair(pilot)]

Meh, I'll play along... here we go!

-It is speculated that the Homo Sapien emerged anywhere from 100 thousand to 300 thousand years ago, not 2 million.

-Evolution suggests a gradual adaptation, there would have not been only 2 humans suddenly appearing making a human baby, but rather a large population group (or several) which would through many many generations eventually become Homo Sapien.

-The world's population growth rate has always been exponentially increasing (with the exception of VERY recent times), it was not higher when the Homo Sapien emerged.

-There is fossil evidence of forms of life on Earth dating back at least 3500 million years.

Just for the record; I am not an evolutionist. I am not a creationist.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

However your comparision to constants is wrong...unlike the dollar in your pocket, the earth's magnetic decay (for example) is very much a constant...it's measurable, it's predictable to the degree that any scientist can safely rely.

Eh, this sounded interesting, so I google'd it -- according to the internet, this argument isn't even used by people who support the "young earth" theory anymore -- it's been proven in recent years that the earth's magnetic field simply reverses itself when it reaches a certain point.

 

[Maj.Striker]

Haha, now you're contradicting yourself (to a point)...how many times in how many threads have I seen you tell others repeatedly, "Don't believe everything you see on the internet" in a variety of ways. Please don't let this degenerate into posting links to such and such a site because I can find just as many that will contradict those links by using Google as well. It'd become nothing more than a "this site says" vs "this site says." No matter how reputable (or irreputable) the site.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Uhm... citing facts is how intelligent debate works...

 

[Edx]

If man evolved from a monkey...why are there still monkeys? (I always like that one). .

I said I wouldnt discuss this... *shakes head*. Humans didnt evolve from Monkeys, we both share the same distant relative. So while we have many different breeds of dog, they all evolved from a kind of wolf.

And btw, the idea of "not beliving everything you hear on the internet" doesnt mean "believe nothing!!" it means you need to check the sources. In the end all of this anti-evolution stuff is based on a religious belief that refuse to give up. This is why it is not surprising that members of Answers in Genesis, one of the largest Creationist organisations in the world must sign a statement that they will never change their minds.

Ed

 

[Edx]

What is Evolution?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

God and Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

I will not be taking part in this but if you will, I suggest this site. Just about all critisism against evolution comes from not understanding it.

Ed

 

[steampunk]

Please don't let this degenerate into posting links to such and such a site because I can find just as many that will contradict those links by using Google as well. It'd become nothing more than a "this site says" vs "this site says." No matter how reputable (or irreputable) the site.

So an irreputable site is as valid as a reputable site?

Of course you have a point, simply posting a link means nothing. However, a link to Scientific American should be taken more seriously to a link <insert random webpage here>. Why? Because it is more likely that the information would have been researched and checked before publication. You are saying that any oppinion is valid.

If man evolved from a monkey...why are there still monkeys? (I always like that one).

You, like me several years ago, do not understand what evolution (perhaps I should say natural selection) does. Evolution does not, cause an organism to converge towards perfection. Think of it like this:

Say there are 2 groups of monkeys. We place these two groups on different islands. They cannot interact. One island is tropical with rain forests. The other is cool and snows some of the year.

You proposing that both groups will develope the same adaptions to deal with their vry different environments. Now in real life, animals are territorial and could (and do) migrate.

 

[steampunk]

I will not be taking part in this but if you will, I suggest this site. Just about all critisism against evolution comes from not understanding it.

Oh come on! If everybody keeps it civil its fun!

 

[Mjr. Whoopass]

None of this is to say that evolution as formulated by Darwin and as refined or amended by others since (yes, please, let us not suggest that evolution rises or falls exclusively on Darwin’s shoulders) will prove immutable over time against any and all challenges.

If we're not talking about Darwin's theory of evolution, then who's theory are we talking about? Maybe we should specify that? Although it might be interesting not to, because each of us may have slightly different opinions of the extent that random evolution and "intelligent design" as you stated, play a part. I was merely stating that there is clear evidence that what Darwin claimed would cause his theory to totally break down has been found in a number of ways. Someone also mentioned that these refutations have been around for awhile, and I have to agree. Here's an example from way back in 1971: Consider the following explanation from evolutionist biologist Frank B. Salisbury from American Biology Teacher, Sept. 1971, pg. 338:

"Surely our ideas about the origin of life will have to change radically with the passage of time. Not only is the gene itself a problem: think of the system that would have to come into being to produce a living cell! It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. Furthermore, DNA by itself accomplishes nothing. Its only reason for existence is the information that it carries and that is used in the production of a protein enzyme. At the moment, the link between DNA nad the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enayzmes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. Yet selection only acts upon phenotypes and not upon the genes. At this level, the phenotype is the enzyme itself. How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment."

Does this prove that ALL aspects of Evolutionary theories are wrong? I don't think so. I do think the idea that such complex systems instantly appeared out of primordial soup and just happened to be functional is extremely ignorant. It wouldn't matter if it was 1, 1 billion, 1 trillion, or infinite years, because the probabilities are not merely astronomical, they're impossible.

 

[Maj.Striker]

Wow, apparently I'm in a minority here but that's alright I don't mind. Thanks to everyone who did post some good thoughts here. Don't worry, I'm sure everyone will keep it civil...there's absolutely no point in starting a flame war over Evolution (or for that matter, pretty much any other topic). Okay, I'll be the first to admit that I do not know completely all the differing schools of thought on Evolution. However every time I discuss Evolution with someone they always seem to have a different take on it. It's hard to discuss something when the principle foundations keep changing.

Okay, here's the beef I have with evolution. It seems to contradict proven scientific law: the Law of Entropy. ("All things left to themselves tend to a state of disorder"). Evolution's basic principle is "Out of chaos became something." And it seems that evolution believes that due to necessity things will adapt (evolve) the situations in which they find themselves. (note: I'm not saying that they will evolve into something necessarily better merely something different).

Evolution means change, and I absolutely believe in change. After all I'm different then my father and my father is different from his father and so on...but we are all still humans. Someone mentioned the hundreds of different breeds of dogs...that's a good example. We have been breeding dogs for thousands of years now and there are many many different breeds of dog but they remain still dogs. There has not been born yet a dog with wings or with scales or etc.
(It's also interesting to point out that most new breeds of dog are derivatives from deliberate intelligent breeding by humans and not so much random chance).

Let's take something like insects, some types of insects' lifetime is much much much shorter than man's. There has probably been millions if not billions of new generations of insects so theoretically according to evolution they should evolve much more quickly than a human. There has been no noticeable change in the basic breeds of insects (now again we could talk about deliberate cross breeds but no noticeable mutations have occurred over and over again as to form a trend).

Okay that's my thoughts...I appreciate in advance your friendly rebuttals.

 

[hellcatv]

That's like saying a car going slowly down the street isn't moving because you took a picture and it isn't blurred...
Sure...a camera exposes the scene for a finite ammt of time (depending on the camera settings)...but compared to the ammt of time needed to observe the car moving at 1mph it's nothing. We've been cataloging species for a very short time... therefore that things appear fairly constant is quite believable

Additionally we keep discovering new species all the time (esp insects)... we aren't even close to cataloging the species on land much less in the sea... even if evolution were happening before our eyes we might well miss it.

 

[Edx]

Oh come on! If everybody keeps it civil its fun!

Mmmm.... maybe. I usually end up getting drawn into these things

 

[Edx]

. I do think the idea that such complex systems instantly appeared out of primordial soup and just happened to be functional is extremely ignorant. .

Not evolution

 

[Fatcat]

Please MamiyaOtaru, as much as I love arguments and debates, especially on politics, don't drag this issue into a forum devoted to WING COMMANDER. I will say this: The Bible is a mix of Historical Truth and Interpretive Truth, not all of it is made to be taken as literal fact. Read the book Inherit the Wind for some crushing arguments supporting Evolution.

Here's a good one: All the genetic code for every living thing on Earth is vertually identical.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Okay, here's the beef I have with evolution. It seems to contradict proven scientific law: the Law of Entropy. ("All things left to themselves tend to a state of disorder"). Evolution's basic principle is "Out of chaos became something." And it seems that evolution believes that due to necessity things will adapt (evolve) the situations in which they find themselves. (note: I'm not saying that they will evolve into something necessarily better merely something different).

That's not really what evolution means at all. Evolution isn't about moving towards some sort of predestined perfect creature... it's about how creatures adapt to chaos.

(Also -- you sound like you'retoo hung up on the wording of 'law' versus 'theory'. The words don't mean what you're assuming in the context of science. Scientific "laws" are leftover from a previous era, when terminology wasn't proper... something that was a "law" in 1600 would be called a "theory" today. Conversely, even the most well proven fact today would still be referred to as a "theory".)

Let's take something like insects, some types of insects' lifetime is much much much shorter than man's. There has probably been millions if not billions of new generations of insects so theoretically according to evolution they should evolve much more quickly than a human. There has been no noticeable change in the basic breeds of insects (now again we could talk about deliberate cross breeds but no noticeable mutations have occurred over and over again as to form a trend).

Actually, one of the most popular examples of 'evolution in action' has to do with bugs -- there was a breed of month in England which, before the industrial revolution, existed in white and grey forrms. The industrial revolution polluted the skies and made the white moths easy for birds to spot -- they were eliminated by predators, and only the gray form survived.

(And yes, in general, the short lifespan of bugs does mean that species adapt more quickly (although it's not as cut and dry as you imply -- a shorter life span means you face less reproductive obstacles, and have a greater chance of passing on your genes regardless) ... that's where all the old sayings about roaches surviving a nuclear war come from.)

--

I don't know if evolution is absolutely true or not -- nobody does. I do know, though, that there's no reasonable way to *disprove* it at this point in time. That's exactly why people get so hung up on defending it -- to claim that you have evidence that it doesn't exist is also to claim that the scientific community has some sort of alterior motive and elaborate conspiracy formed around the science in the first place.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think that if someone thinks a monkey is their uncle, I'll probably agree with them.

 

[Maj.Striker]

I don't know if evolution is absolutely true or not -- nobody does. I do know, though, that there's no reasonable way to *disprove* it at this point in time. That's exactly why people get so hung up on defending it -- to claim that you have evidence that it doesn't exist is also to claim that the scientific community has some sort of alterior motive and elaborate conspiracy formed around the science in the first place.

Well that's probably the truth of the matter. I've come to the opinion that Evolution or even Creation is more than just a hypothesis on existence, it's truly belief. What I say isn't going to change the mind of someone who believes Evolution nor is what you say going to change what I believe in Creation.

It's a matter of belief, I believe in Creation because it makes the most sense to me, much more so than the big bang theory and the resulting philosophy(s) of Evolution. I believe in a powerful almighty Creator because everytime I start to consider the unbelievable complexity of existence it blows my mind. If you look at the human body you find its amazing complexity in how in each and every cell your DNA is imprinted and each cell works together to provide some thing for your body. That's amazing. The regeneration of dead cells, the complexity of the human brain in such that independent coherent thought is created and substantiated. To me, that's amazing. I look at the galaxy and see millions upon millions of stars in an expanse that reaches beyond my understanding and realize that perhaps around each of those stars my be another solar system each with their own planets and unique environments. That's amazing.

I consider the unseen forces of nature: gravity, centrifugal force, magnetism, light/sound waves and how they all work in an orderly fashion. That's amazing to me. In everything I see, I find order, a structured complexity that to me seems impossible to be the result of random chance.

Others, however, for their own reasons do not believe in a divine creator and prefer to believe that all life as we know it was the result of one random chance (whose statistical probable odds boggle the mind) formulated this amazing universe.

Anyway, I guess I'm saying, I'll believe in creation even if you handed me a stack of scientific facts a mile high "disproving" creation, I'd expect no less from anyone who truly professes themselves as Evolutionists. Good thoughts by all but I don't see this thread as significantly changing anyone's mindset.

.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Sure, that's reasonable. For my money, I really don't think evolution should be linked to the existence of God -- parties on both sides tend to hijack what should be an ordinary study of genetic science into an argument about something it couldn't possibly relate to.

The entire debate is a weird historical abstraction -- it was a stupid debate in a completely different time in history... those ranting about science need to understand that it's *not* proof that God doesn't exist, and religious minded individuals who defend it as though it were a threat are really only making the situation worse.

 

[steampunk]

However every time I discuss Evolution with someone they always seem to have a different take on it. It's hard to discuss something when the principle foundations keep changing.

I would say that they don't really understand it. The scientific community is pretty much in agreement as to what is going on. How and why it happened is the question.

It seems to contradict proven scientific law: the Law of Entropy. ("All things left to themselves tend to a state of disorder").

The second law of thermodynamics specifically states that this is only true for a closed system. Nothing can go in or out. The Earth is not closed. Thus we can decrease our entropy at the expense of another system.

And it seems that evolution believes that due to necessity things will adapt (evolve) the situations in which they find themselves.

Not really. If you are suited to the environment, we have a better chance of survival, if not, you die. If we could affect a large change quickly, you could easily wipe out a population of whatever.

We have been breeding dogs for thousands of years now and there are many many different breeds of dog but they remain still dogs. There has not been born yet a dog with wings or with scales or etc. ..... stuff about insects.

Forgetting the breeding part, there has been no cause for such adaptions. There is nothing selecting traits for a more agile jumping dog that could lead to flying dogs. Same for the insects. See Loaf's moth example. Polution colour was the 'selector' in that case. If the smoke had been pink, the moth's might be extinct.

And before lunch a word on laws and thoeries. We still use both. I find it useful to think of it like this:

A Law is like a mathematical relation that is always true.

A Theory is an idea that tries to explain why something happens and has solid evidence to back it up.

Hence we have a Law and Theory for gravity. The Law is: F = gMm/r^2 (something like that), and the theory tries to explain what is going on. Why is there a force between 2 objects? And you have gravitons and all that stuff.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Eh, mathematical laws are a little different -- but there was a time in history when any sufficiently supported scientific theory became referred to as a law. This leads to a lot of people seeing things like "theory of evolution" and believing that it's some kind of unsupported, unproven idea rather than, esssentially, as close to fact as modern science is willing to come.