08-05-2012, 02:27 PM | #26 | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
That's assuming Macroevolution exists at all, which, if you start out with as your pretense, only further proves my point that Science can't be trusted to be unbiased. And your assertion that, conveniently, it takes too long to observe the effects of evolution, is nothing more than a pathetic excuse, and insulting. Don't make the claim if you can't prove it. If every species was in the process of evolving, it's highly likely that their evolution time-tables would not be equal, meaning at least 1 species could, possibly, be right on the verge of a major evolutionary change. But we don't see any of those major evolutionary changes, and that's my point. If evolution did exist, there should be at least 1 species, somewhere, that has mutated significantly enough to be considered a "new species in formation." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just because you don't see him, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. |
||||
08-05-2012, 02:53 PM | #27 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Glad you found it interesting, UM. I agree that it's got its flaws in terms of being used as proof for other things, but it does prove that evolution is something which occurs in nature.
|
08-05-2012, 03:02 PM | #28 | ||
「Killer Queen No Prog」
|
Quote:
Quote:
And, as it relates to this thread, Wikipedia's Common Descent page. |
||
08-05-2012, 05:05 PM | #29 | |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
08-06-2012, 02:24 AM | #31 | |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Quote:
The line between "evolution within a species" and "evolution into a different species" is drawn depending on the characteristics of an animal. Which, funnily enough, tend to change with evolution. Micro-evolution is exactly the same as macro-evolution.
__________________
Spoiler: show |
|
08-06-2012, 12:29 PM | #32 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Also, it does make sense, when you leave behind all your preconceived notions, and all the stuff you've been taught in school. And from a biblical standpoint, it fits perfectly. Quote:
Quote:
And what'll be next? Since Blacks and Whites are different species, and they can interbreed, what's wrong with accepting other species for breeding? Like Chimpanzees, or Gorilla? Where does the rabbit hole end? Last edited by unownmew; 08-06-2012 at 12:42 PM. |
|||
08-06-2012, 01:07 PM | #33 | ||||||||
Decidedly Epic
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As a religious person myself, I know of the arguments against evolution sourced from the Bible and other texts. According to Genesis chapter 1, God created every sea creature on the fourth day and every land creature on the fifth day. That right there leaves space for evolution. Current theories say that life originated in the water, and then moved to the land. Who can understand the mind of God? Surely none of us, and who are we to tell him how he created life. He may have used Evolution as a tool to get life to the state it is in today. Also, the Scopes monkey trial is very relevant, and shows that the corruption pointed out by Unownmew is not only present in Scientists. Last edited by Haymez; 08-06-2012 at 03:55 PM. |
||||||||
08-06-2012, 03:36 PM | #34 | |||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Problem is, who's to say a particular millions of years isn't up, and ready for a new species to evolve during our tenure? Assuming these "millions of years" somehow start "now" as opposed to possibly "some millions of years ago, and could very well be spent 'now,'" is just naive. If we can see the short term effects, why aren't we seeing any transitory species emerging along the path? Why are these "Transit species" only existent in the fossil record "millions of years ago" which presumably, is the also same time it would take to evolve into another creature. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Religions only began that way though, if you take an atheistic view of the universe. Quote:
Another problem with evolution, is the high scarcity of these transitory species. If evolution takes millions of years, you would think that each and every single "transit species" would have a healthy population as it stabilized, and then a new population for each additional evolutionary transit point. If some form of raptor evolved into a Bird, would there not be several transits that would have to stabilize and overtake the current population between the two points? One transit introduces feathers, another one introduces wings, a third improves the wings, a fourth loses the "Raptor claw," a fifth completely alters the bone structure from solid to hollow, and a sixth changes from cold-blooded to warmblooded, and finally a seventh evolves the skinless "Bird talon" from the fleshy reptile Claw. Each transit having a stabilizing population where the mutation takes root, and then evolves the second one. Or will you try to tell me that all those changes occurred "at once" and there was only 1 transit population and then the new species? Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||
08-06-2012, 03:53 PM | #35 | |
Decidedly Epic
|
Quote:
Technically, all species are in "transit". Constantly in a process. Evolution isn't a whole bunch of jumps as you described with the dinosaur to bird, but a gradual process going on constantly. These "jumps" are misinterpreted as how evolution works since we only have snapshots of what these species were like millions of years ago in the form of the fossil record. It's like watching a series of slides from an activity, and then trying to figure out exactly what went on. You can get a fairly good idea, but not the full thing. Last edited by Haymez; 08-06-2012 at 03:55 PM. |
|
08-06-2012, 03:54 PM | #36 | |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
I think you're drastically overestimating the success rate of fossilisation. The odds of an organism's remains ending up in the right conditions to be fossilised, and that fossil then surviving to be unearthed millenia later, are riduclously high. True, there are some areas where it's pretty common (Burgess Shales, La Brea tar pits), but these are due to fast preservation (landslip and being immersed in tar, respectively).
The average creature that meets its end in a forest or grassy plain is ridiculously unlikely to be fossilised. Elaborated on here (though you'll probably focus on the fact that it says there are no references even though it's just clarification): Quote:
...except... not? I honestly don't know how to reply to this given that everyone's pretty much given you the evidence you need but as I've said, I'm not a natural debator. |
|
08-06-2012, 03:57 PM | #37 |
Not sure if gone...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
|
It's okay, guys. Unownmew is under the impression that he is more intelligent than literally thousands of people far more intelligent than he is, and that's quite a hard thing to argue against.
|
08-06-2012, 04:09 PM | #38 | ||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
UM, indulge me for a moment. How would you define a species? A practical definition that we can use to tell when two animals are a different species and when they aren't, not one that relies on us having seen them being created. A definition that we can go out and find two animals and determine for certain if they're the same species or not. The classicly quoted definition taught to me in biology, iirc, is "if two animals can breed and produce fertile offspring, they're the same species", I was just curious as to your take.
EDIT the first: Also, what exactly do you think evolutionists mean by "macroevolution"? Quote:
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 08-07-2012 at 08:06 AM. |
||
08-06-2012, 05:47 PM | #39 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
My faith in humanity is renewed and lost at the sight of this thread.
Really, I am still in high school and I know enough that my Bull-Shit-O-Meter is off the charts. Mostly at the completely wrong usage of theory by Unownmew because he seems to think that for evolution it means something different. I can think of many theories Unownmew that pretty much thye entire world views as fact. A theory is a theory because it has backing. There is no "Theory of Intelligent Design", because there is absolutely no experiments you can do to prove it. None. Nada. While, MarcoEvolution can be seen in bacteria because of the ridicoulously(fuck my spelling) short generation spans(hours to days). It is much easier to see macroevolution in that aspect. I personally believe that most evolution happns after climatic events, such as mass extinctions, and that the periods in between as like evolutionary droughts. But, that is just my belief. I don't take the Theory of Evolution of hand. >Fossil record proves creation OH WAIT YOU'RE SERIOUS!!?? LET ME LAUGH EVEN HARDER!! The fossil record is RIDICOUSLY imcomplete. It dosen't prove it one way or another. It's like a REALLY partial fingerprint at a crime scene.
__________________
|
08-06-2012, 05:54 PM | #40 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Relax blaze. Any bashing will inevitably get dealt with before the topic of the thread and we'll all lose track. S'counter productive.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
08-06-2012, 05:55 PM | #41 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Arguing the fossil record proves Creation is like arguing the DNA in the semen sample swabbed from the rape victim's orifices, DNA which matches the accused's DNA to within a .005% margin of error, exculpates the accused.
__________________
|
08-07-2012, 01:55 AM | #42 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
In a twist of irony, I actually buy UM's conspiracy theory arguments as they pertain to the global warming debate. Not to the point of dismissing everything, but financial incentive and political bias are so prevalent it's enough to doubt almost all evidence that could link into a near-future end of the world scenario. It's far more clear cut a debate to throw in reasonable doubt, especially since it's not about values/beliefs v. systemic evidence, but evidence v. evidence and degree of premeditation.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
08-07-2012, 10:55 AM | #43 | |||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
My point is, if there is transit, there's no reason why we could not see a major transit difference in a species any day now. Quote:
You expect me to believe that over time, some animals arms, which are essential to certain "traditional" uses, slowly morph themselves, over many generations,from claws, into wings? Have we seen any archeological evidence of a creature with half-formed wings? I posit to you, any half-formed features like that would pose a serious survival risk to the creature. And again, I posit to you, if Raptors really evolved into birds, where is the evolutionary link where their bones transformed from solid, sturdy, reptile bones, into the very hollow, very lightweight, and fragile bones of a bird? You honesty expect me to believe that over time their bones started becoming more and more hollow and fragile? Would their DNA even allow such a mutation? Quote:
And what I found there was astonishing. So far, there has been no practical definition of "Species" that can be used in totality. In actuality, there are about over 2 dozen different scientific definitions used in biology, and none of them are sufficient to describe everything. It's a complete malstrom of contradicting observations. It is thus my stance that, there is no current scientific definition of species that can be used with the theory of evolution with any credibility. In my opinion, the entire Taxon structure needs to be redesigned. Laymen say "species of dog," and "species of cat," but when we think of species as a whole, we think of Dogs and Cats as two Species. And yet a Wolf and a Dog can sometimes breed as well, yet they are generally considered differing species. I myself, with only a leyman's knowledge of biology, would scientifically define species, more in line with the naturalist's definition before Darwin, as "an idea," a particular specimen from which all the variable specimens are derived, even if said specimen does not exist as anything more than an idea. A Dog is a Dog, a Cat is a Cat and a Finch is a Finch. The variations between the various Dogs and Cats and Finches, are what should be known as subspecies. As for Mules and Ligers, and other such offspring of two differing species (the product generally being infertile), they exist as a species of their own as well, being a different idea. As for the Wolf and the Dog breeding Problem, this requires a higher "Base Idea," which categorizes both, and is considered the base "species," from which the subspecies of Dog and Wolf are listed together instead. It eliminates the existence of "Dog" and "Wolf" as scientific categories, and leaves them simply to be identifiers in our minds (Wolves are wild, Dogs are Domesticated). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If that's not how you interpreted my statement, I apologize for being unclear. Quote:
Which is why I'm always trying to get us to debate the evidence and not the sources. |
|||||||||
08-07-2012, 12:00 PM | #44 | ||||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
Quote:
If intelligent design were true, then eventually as we moved up the taxonomic definitions (depending on how much evolution you're willing to allow - "microevolution but not macroevolution" doesn't tell me anything, as they're identical except for timescale) we would expect to eventually hit distinct categories. You would think that we'd be able to eventually say for certain "okay, these are all variations on one thing that was created" - divide all species into perfect groups. We can't. Quote:
Lungfish are a fantastic example of what we mean by macroevolution - simply the accumulation of microevolution effects. With microevolution, I'm sure you could imagine that a fishes gills might, for whatever reason, become ever so slightly less effective than several generations previous. Repeat this change enough and gradually, despite each generation being nearly identical to the previous one, we end up with an animal massively different to what we started with. Macroevolution is nothing more than the culmulative effects of countless little changes - it is simply microevolution on a much longer timescale.
__________________
Quote:
|
||||
08-07-2012, 12:24 PM | #45 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
>Lungfish
Oh good, a bit that I know a lot about. Lungfish also belong to a group of fish called the sarcopterygians - lobe-finned fish closely related to the first amphibians, rather different than the other bony fish (actinopterygians) which have (usually) delicate spine-based fins. Along with the coelacanth, they're good examples of species that have survived almost unchanged for about 350-odd million years because they haven't had to, they survive in their environments just fine. While it's not as noticable on lungfish due to their fins being more like limp tentacles than other structures, coelacanth noticably use their sturdy fins to push themselves across the ocean floor, furthering the likelyhood that this group gave rise to land-based vertebrates. There are other fish that breath air (Labyrinth fish, tarpon), but they have their own structures for absorbing oxygen from the air. Lungfish, however, have lungs that are much more like those belonging to tetrapods, modified from swim bladders that they no longer have need for. Like Concept said, a few species of lungfish will drown if deprived access to air. Also, I just want to clear up how evolution works because it seems like people are going for the old misconception that a species purposefully 'evolves' wings, or a tail, or something. This is most certainly not the case. Species are constantly striving to survive, gather food, and exploit their environmental niche. If one or a few individuals are born with a slight mutation that furthers this, then they survive for longer and produce more offspring, who share this mutation. Over the generations and down the line, this mutation may develop, resulting in different bone structures, organs, methods of locamotion, and much more. It's just survival of the fittest. Essentially: Evolution is completely random. There's no way to say which way mutations will go, but creatures haven't evolved to fit their particular niche, they occupy that niche because that's how they've evolved. (There's probably a better way to put that but my brain is stupid.) Also regarding 'jumps' - yes, there are periods of high evolutionary radiation, but these are almost always after Mass Extinction Events. In the early Eocene (55-60 mya) there was rapid development of many species of mammal and bird to deal with the huge ecological gaps left by the sudden extinction of the Dinosaurs and other large reptiles. Similar is the evolution of the Dinosaurs themselves, appearing a little after the Permian extinction event that wiped out about 95% of all species. Assuming mankind has no further interference, there will likely be another period of huge radiation in the future to counter the human-induced extinction event currently ongoing. No idea if what any of what I've said is helpful. I'm terrible at putting my thoughts into words, but I just figured I could try. |
08-07-2012, 01:12 PM | #46 | ||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Seriously? There is no evidence here of "transit." A flying squirrel is very different from a bird, it has no wings, and it cannot fly. It glides by spreading loose skin between it's fore and hind legs, and it can only go "down." Are you trying to tell me a flying squirrel is a transit from a regular squirrel and a new breed of squirrel that will eventually be able to fly like a bird? I find it more believable that it's a completely differently designed species from squirrel. Quote:
If we throw out Evolution, there are other explanations that could work just as well. Quote:
Quote:
http://www.annekempslungfish.com/wha..._lungfish.html Quote:
IMO, it being a transitory species is no more possible than it having been specifically designed for it's environment by some aspiring xenobiologist with an extensive laboratory, i.e. an intelligent designer. Quote:
|
||||||
08-07-2012, 01:23 PM | #47 |
Decidedly Epic
|
I can. Imagine every existing species lives in the water billions of years ago. There's this thing called land out there with plenty of food and no competition, as well as no predators. Less effective gills and the addition of lungs allows access to land. No competition for food and nobody trying to eat you. Sounds like an advantage to me.
__________________
|
08-07-2012, 01:50 PM | #48 | |||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
08-07-2012, 01:51 PM | #49 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
And now you just circled yourself: why are the gills weaker to begin with? Naturally living in a watery environment, better gills would be the natural selection. Those with weaker would be be more vulnerable to getting caught and eaten. Last edited by unownmew; 08-07-2012 at 01:54 PM. |
|
08-07-2012, 02:12 PM | #50 | |
Decidedly Epic
|
Quote:
The gills wouldn't start out weaker, but as the food source was found, they would develop so that they could access it.
__________________
|
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|