UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-05-2012, 02:27 PM   #26
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTheFishGuy View Post
>No half-evolved or evolving species has ever been observed in real-time

Aside from, you know, all species. There's no such thing as 'half-evolved', all species are permanently undergoing evolution at a rate that is only observable over thousands, if not millions of years.

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:
Technically mankind is in transit. It's a popular hypothesis that due to the creation of the African Rift Valley approx. 3 mya, apes began to exploit the new habitat, using the water to support their bodies and allow for a bipedal stance, before developing more characteristics seen in aquatic mammals - loss of body hair, accumulation of fat in layers under the skin, widening of hands/feet to paddle through the water. This was so they could access the newly-available source of aquatic food, which over the generations increased the size of their brains. When self-awareness kicked in, said apes moved away from the water and back inland, which is why humans are so strange compared to other mammals.

Again, just a hypothesis, but one I happen to agree with because it makes sense.
I think it's crazy, but to each their own.

Quote:
Another example would be racial diversity. People of african origin have such dark skin as a response to the higher levels of UV radiation that they are exposed to, whereas peoples from around the arctic have fairer skin because they have no need for such a defence.
Wrong, racial diversity is not macroevolution, it is an instance of micro-evolution, evolution within a species, not, evolution into a different species.

Quote:
Just because no massive changes have taken place in animals (aside from ones purpose-bred by man, which is another story) have taken place over the last three/four thousand years, doesn't mean that evolution can be dismissed because 'you can't see it'. You can't stand by a fault line for a year and then state that continental drift doesn't exist just because you can't see the land moving beneath your feet.
By that logic, I could prove God.

Just because you don't see him, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 02:53 PM   #27
Mercutio
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.
Mercutio is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 03:02 PM   #28
kusari
「Killer Queen No Prog」
 
kusari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In a beautiful Duwang
Posts: 2,343
Send a message via Skype™ to kusari
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
All Species of Animals exist as they have since the creation period.
So, by this logic, deer were walking around with the dinosaurs and clownfish mingled with megalodon. That makes so much sense.

Quote:
By that logic, I could prove God.

Just because you don't see him, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
Except we know that tectonic activity happens. We have indisputable evidence of it (earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.). We have only claims that God exists. No solid proof has ever been presented to prove that. But, this is not the place for that discussion.


And, as it relates to this thread, Wikipedia's Common Descent page.
__________________
Eternally TL4 4-EVER For All of Infinite Time
kusari is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 05:05 PM   #29
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by kusari View Post
We have only claims that God exists. No solid proof has ever been presented to prove that.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/...my-potato-chip
__________________
Tyranidos is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 05:10 PM   #30
JustAnotherUser
Only Mostly Lurking
 
JustAnotherUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: England, UK
Posts: 2,297
Send a message via Skype™ to JustAnotherUser
TDos wins, hands down.
__________________
[JAU]
Spoiler: show
JustAnotherUser is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 02:24 AM   #31
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post

Wrong, racial diversity is not macroevolution, it is an instance of micro-evolution, evolution within a species, not, evolution into a different species.

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
Rangeet is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:29 PM   #32
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by kusari View Post
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]So, by this logic, deer were walking around with the dinosaurs and clownfish mingled with megalodon. That makes so much sense.
Actually, when you take everything at face value, instead of coming in with preconcieved notions, it doens't matter what "makes sense," what matters is what "is"

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:
Except we know that tectonic activity happens. We have indisputable evidence of it (earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.). We have only claims that God exists. No solid proof has ever been presented to prove that. But, this is not the place for that discussion.
Solid Proof has been documented, just like scientific proof, the observations of those who saw it are documented in the Bible, Book of Ether, and other Religious texts. Just like our textbooks tell us about Aristotle, Galileo and all the other past great Scientists, even though none of us saw them, and our textbooks are simply a compilation of old scientific documents passed down through the ages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
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.
So you're telling me Blacks are a different species than Whites, or are in the process of becoming such? You're getting very dangerously close to legitimizing segregation and racism. In fact, isn't that what slave holders thought? That Blacks were "different than human"? I'm sure I don't have to illustrate where that sort of thinking will lead... It's absolutely Vile.

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.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 01:07 PM   #33
Haymez
Decidedly Epic
 
Haymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The land of balloons and dirt
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Skype™ to Haymez
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
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."
The whole idea was that evolution takes millions of years to produce a "major evolutionary change". It doesn't happen overnight, and as we haven't been recording things for millions of years (Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859) there is no way we could possibly see that. However what we can see is the short term effects of long term evolution, what you call micro-evolution is really just full long term evolution observed over a short period of time.

Quote:
Just because you don't see him, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
Just because you don't see evolution in action doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
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.
If we're leaving behind preconcieved notions, You'll have to leave behind everything you've learned in Sunday School as well.

Quote:
Solid Proof has been documented, just like scientific proof, the observations of those who saw it are documented in the Bible, Book of Ether, and other Religious texts. Just like our textbooks tell us about Aristotle, Galileo and all the other past great Scientists, even though none of us saw them, and our textbooks are simply a compilation of old scientific documents passed down through the ages.
If you're going to bash the credibility of Scientists in general, you must also leave these religious texts open to criticism as well. There is absolutely no difference. Both scientific and religious texts are records of observations made by human beings. And as the saying goes, to err is human. Mistakes can be found in both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
By "only theory" I was referring to, it's competition with Intelligent Design, where only The Theory of Evolution, and not the Theory of Intelligent Design is allowed to be taught in Public Schools.
If you're going to bash the term "theory" as it applies to the theory of evolution, think of it's application to the theory of intelligent design.

Quote:
Not part of my points, but it is interesting to watch scientists/athiests squirm as they try to explain why there can not be a God when they have no answer as to how life originates.
They have no answer to that question, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. It is one of the mysteries of nature that we have yet to find a solution with solid, observable evidence for the problem. As I'm sure you're aware, religions began as a way to explain what people didn't understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Speciation by Intelligent Design:

Make falsifiable predictions which are then shown with consistent accuracy.
All Species of Animals exist as they have since the creation period.
There is diversity and mutation within a Species, but no species becomes another completely different species. Abnormalities which seem to be separate species can be explained by injury, rare mutation, and sickness within a species.
Accuracy: 100%

Be well supported by multiple sources of evidence
Fossil Record
The Bible
The Koran
Basically all Ancient Religious beliefs
The fossil record contains strong support for evolution as well. Looking here we can see an intermediary species within the fossil record. Look in the fourth paragraph.

Quote:
No half-evolved or evolving species has ever been observed in real-time.
Again, the time involved makes it impossible to view evolution in action using "real time" as you put it.

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.
Haymez is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 03:36 PM   #34
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymez View Post
The whole idea was that evolution takes millions of years to produce a "major evolutionary change". It doesn't happen overnight, and as we haven't been recording things for millions of years (Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859) there is no way we could possibly see that. However what we can see is the short term effects of long term evolution, what you call micro-evolution is really just full long term evolution observed over a short period of time.
Of course, how convenient for you.
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:
Just because you don't see evolution in action doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
that was the first point I bounced off to say God could exist even though you don't see him in action.



Quote:
If we're leaving behind preconcieved notions, You'll have to leave behind everything you've learned in Sunday School as well.
Fair enough, I shall try, but that doesn't mean I'll consider it through the view of "a God-created universe is impossible."

Quote:
If you're going to bash the credibility of Scientists in general, you must also leave these religious texts open to criticism as well. There is absolutely no difference. Both scientific and religious texts are records of observations made by human beings. And as the saying goes, to err is human. Mistakes can be found in both.
And here I thought that Religious texts already had such a bad reputation here that such would have been unnecessary. I agree, to err is to be human, both sides have mistakes and incomplete information.


Quote:
If you're going to bash the term "theory" as it applies to the theory of evolution, think of it's application to the theory of intelligent design.
Except, I thought that that theory was already bashed enough that doing so on my part was unnecessary.


Quote:
They have no answer to that question, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. It is one of the mysteries of nature that we have yet to find a solution with solid, observable evidence for the problem. As I'm sure you're aware, religions began as a way to explain what people didn't understand.
Of course there is an answer. Even if God created the universe, he did it in some manner, and science is the discovery of how he did it.
Religions only began that way though, if you take an atheistic view of the universe.


Quote:
The fossil record contains strong support for evolution as well. Looking here we can see an intermediary species within the fossil record. Look in the fourth paragraph.
Dinosaurs with feathers? Who's to say some of those species didn't ALL have feathers to begin with? Who's to say this is even a transitory species, and not a completely different, unrelated, species that also happens to be extinct? You can't prove anything with it, except that at least one creature we call a dinosaur had feathers.

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:
Again, the time involved makes it impossible to view evolution in action using "real time" as you put it.
Only if your evolution clock set at year 0 starts at recorded history. Why can't the millions of years necessary for the evolution have occurred millions of years ago?

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.
I agree, that does make time for evolution. But I'm not arguing against evolution because it can't be reconciled with my religion, I'm arguing against evolution because it's ludicrous, full of holes, and completely implausible according to many other, not-so-widely-mentioned, observations.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 03:53 PM   #35
Haymez
Decidedly Epic
 
Haymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The land of balloons and dirt
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Skype™ to Haymez
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Of course, how convenient for you.
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.
The transit species are visible, we just don't recognize them as "transit species" because we are used to them as they are, but if we looked a given species for an extended length of time, we could see it's full evolutionary process.

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.
Haymez is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 03:54 PM   #36
DaveTheFishGuy
Primordial Fishbeast
 
DaveTheFishGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,258
Send a message via Skype™ to DaveTheFishGuy
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:
Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil. Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record. Furthermore, in the strictest sense, nearly all fossils are "transitional," due to the improbability that any given fossil represents the absolute termination of an evolutionary path.
>I'm arguing against evolution because it's ludicrous, full of holes, and completely implausible according to many other, not-so-widely-mentioned, observations

...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.
DaveTheFishGuy is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 03:57 PM   #37
Amras.MG
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.
Amras.MG is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 04:09 PM   #38
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
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:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Of course, how convenient for you.
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.
This seems so suggest that you think that evolutionists believe there's a sudden step as it were, a point at which one species becomes another, and that you'd be able to see that change between one generation and another where the offspring is definitively a different species to the parents. I may be reading it wrong though. Is that what you think macroevolution says?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 08-07-2012 at 08:06 AM.
Concept is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 05:47 PM   #39
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
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.
__________________
Emi is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 05:54 PM   #40
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
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:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 05:55 PM   #41
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
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.
Talon87 is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 01:55 AM   #42
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
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
Doppleganger is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:55 AM   #43
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amras.MG View Post
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.
No need to be condescending here. I don't think I'm more intelligent, I am more suspicious, and skeptical. IMO, I know different things than you know, not more things, just different things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymez View Post
The transit species are visible, we just don't recognize them as "transit species" because we are used to them as they are, but if we looked a given species for an extended length of time, we could see it's full evolutionary process.
We can look that far? I don't doubt we can see things that would Seem to correspond to the theory of evolution through Archeology, but it's really impossible to tell one way or another if they actually do or not.
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:
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.
Evolution isn't a bunch of jumps? You expect me to believe that? The bacteria experiment that was linked just a while back, if it proves anything, proves that it does occur in "Jumps."

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:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
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.
You know, that is a Very very good question, and I'm very glad I read the Wiki page on Species thoroughly before I read your post.

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:
EDIT the first: Also, what exactly do you think evolutionists mean by "macroevolution"?
Evolution from one species, with particular key distinguishing traits, such as a fish, to another species with different key traits, such as an amphibian. The Leap between being one thing, to being another. The obvious break from one Category into another catagory. There is a key difference between a fish and an amphibian, and that is the ability to exist on land. There is also a difference between a fish and a legged creature, so if a fish "evolves" legs, then this is another macro-evolution. If this Legged fish, evolves amphibian features, then this is another macroevolution.


Quote:
This seems so suggest that you think that evolutionists believe there's a sudden step as it were, a point at which one species becomes another, and that you'd be able to see that change between one generation and another where the offspring is definitively a different species to the parents. I may be reading it wrong though. Is that what you think macroevolution says?
Yes. In order for a Fish to become a walking amphibian, at least two key features must change. The addition of Legs, and the ability to breath outside of water-probably the loss of gills. It doesn't matter how slowly these features occur, because the very instant the functionality changes, the creature has become something different. Even if it takes thousands of mutations to evolve smaller and smaller gills, the moment the fish evolves lungs and starts breathing Air as opposed to water, the evolutionary leap has occurred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
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.
Talk to me in the Christianity Thread, I'll give you an experiment you can do to determine whether there is a God or not, and from such, determine the truth or lie of intelligent design. Of course I don't believe you want to know, so I can't trust you'll actually do it properly.

Quote:
>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.
I thought I said it "supports" creation, just like it "supports" evolution. The key is all in how you interpret the data, and which data you choose to ignore.

If that's not how you interpreted my statement, I apologize for being unclear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
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.
Thanks for the support, you're right on the money.

Which is why I'm always trying to get us to debate the evidence and not the sources.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:00 PM   #44
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
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.
Archealogical evidence? Not sure, I'm not a biologist. But living, breathing species as evidence? I'd say so.

Quote:
You know, that is a Very very good question, and I'm very glad I read the Wiki page on Species thoroughly before I read your post.

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.
Couldn't agree more. It's called the species problem. It makes sense if one assumes evolution, of course - evolution being really nothing more than gradual changes one generation upon another which accumulate over incredible periods of time to make a very large difference, you'd expect to be able to see in nature different levels of species having drifted apart. Being a continuous spectrum ranging from "nearly identical" to "birds as compared to fish", evolution would obviously produce difficulties in trying to organise things into neat, distinct categories.

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:
Evolution from one species, with particular key distinguishing traits, such as a fish, to another species with different key traits, such as an amphibian. The Leap between being one thing, to being another. The obvious break from one Category into another catagory. There is a key difference between a fish and an amphibian, and that is the ability to exist on land. There is also a difference between a fish and a legged creature, so if a fish "evolves" legs, then this is another macro-evolution. If this Legged fish, evolves amphibian features, then this is another macroevolution.

Yes. In order for a Fish to become a walking amphibian, at least two key features must change. The addition of Legs, and the ability to breath outside of water-probably the loss of gills. It doesn't matter how slowly these features occur, because the very instant the functionality changes, the creature has become something different. Even if it takes thousands of mutations to evolve smaller and smaller gills, the moment the fish evolves lungs and starts breathing Air as opposed to water, the evolutionary leap has occurred.
What about things like lungfish? As a quick summary of that page, lungfish are a subclass of animals that possess both lungs and gills. All but one have what are clearly gills that are no longer capable of providing the creature with enough oxygen to survive - the Australian lungfish has a single, less developed lung and its gills are still sufficient to allow it to breathe in water.

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:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:24 PM   #45
DaveTheFishGuy
Primordial Fishbeast
 
DaveTheFishGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,258
Send a message via Skype™ to DaveTheFishGuy
>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.
DaveTheFishGuy is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 01:12 PM   #46
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Archealogical evidence? Not sure, I'm not a biologist. But living, breathing species as evidence? I'd say so.
...
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:
Couldn't agree more. It's called the species problem. It makes sense if one assumes evolution, of course - evolution being really nothing more than gradual changes one generation upon another which accumulate over incredible periods of time to make a very large difference, you'd expect to be able to see in nature different levels of species having drifted apart. Being a continuous spectrum ranging from "nearly identical" to "birds as compared to fish", evolution would obviously produce difficulties in trying to organise things into neat, distinct categories.
It makes sense assuming evolution, IF, you are thinking through the lens of evolution already.
If we throw out Evolution, there are other explanations that could work just as well.

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.
Can't? Or won't? What if, somehow, as we moved up the timescale, everything remained essentially the same, including all the convoluted relationships causing the species problem? The variety of life, having existing since the beginning.


Quote:
What about things like lungfish? As a quick summary of that page, lungfish are a subclass of animals that possess both lungs and gills. All but one have what are clearly gills that are no longer capable of providing the creature with enough oxygen to survive - the Australian lungfish has a single, less developed lung and its gills are still sufficient to allow it to breathe in water.
Aha, now that does seem to suggest evolution, however,
http://www.annekempslungfish.com/wha..._lungfish.html
Quote:
A lung in a mammal is made up of billions of tiny cavities containing air, known as alveoli.
In lungfish, the lung has large air sacs, and no minute alveoli. It works more like the swim bladder of a bony fish than a lung for breathing air.
lungfish are not the only fish with a swim bladder, nor are they the only ones that can "breath" with a swim bladder, and, as lungfish ancestry dates back to ancient times, without evolution, we have no record of a "previous" fish it might have evolved from that did Not have a swim bladder, nor do we have any specimens of creatures that might have "broken off" from lungfish that evolved to land.

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:
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.
Actually, no, to be honest, I can't imagine any scenario where a fish's gills becoming less effective provides it a significant evolutionary advantage, unless we're going to give any credence to Lamarck's Theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 01:23 PM   #47
Haymez
Decidedly Epic
 
Haymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The land of balloons and dirt
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Skype™ to Haymez
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Actually, no, to be honest, I can't imagine any scenario where a fish's gills becoming less effective provides it a significant evolutionary advantage, unless we're going to give any credence to Lamarck's Theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics.
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.
__________________
Haymez is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 01:50 PM   #48
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTheFishGuy View Post
[COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]>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.
http://www.annekempslungfish.com/wha...saboutlungfish

Quote:
It is true that lungfish have muscular fins, and that they use them to "walk" underwater, with alternating movements, First, one fin moves forward, then the other. The pectoral fins at the front, and the pelvic fins at the back, all work this way.

This ability is not confined to lungfish. Many fish can do it, even fish that nobody would describe as a close relation of land animals, such as the bichir, and skates and rays.
Here's a question, if the coelacanth hasn't ever had to evolve, who's to say any other animal has ever had to evolve?


Quote:
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod#Lungs_before_land
Quote:
In order to function in gas exchange, lungs need to be supplied by blood. In cartilaginous fishes and teleosts, the heart pumps blood forward through the ventral aorta which splits up in a series of paired aortic arches, each corresponding to a gill arch.[16] The aortic arches then merge to form a dorsal aorta supplying the body with oxygenated blood. In lungfishes, bowfin and bichirs, the swim bladder is supplied by paired pulmonary arteries branching off from the hindmost (6th) aortic arch.[17] The same basic pattern is found in the lungfish Protopterus and in terrestrial salamanders, and was likely the pattern found in the tetrapods' immediate forefathers as well as the first tetrapods.[18] In most other bony fishes the swim bladder is supplied by the dorsal aorta.
[quote]
Quote:
The nostrils in most bony fish differ from those of tetrapods. Normally, bony fish have four nasal openings, one behind the other on each side. As the fish swims, water flow into the forward pair, across the olfactory tissue and out through the posterior openings. In contrast, tetrapod have only one pair of nares externally, but also sport a pair of internal nares on the palate, allowing them to draw air through the nose.
http://www.annekempslungfish.com/wha..._lungfish.html
Quote:
A lung in a mammal is made up of billions of tiny cavities containing air, known as alveoli.

In lungfish, the lung has large air sacs, and no minute alveoli. It works more like the swim bladder of a bony fish than a lung for breathing air. (Fig 2-04)

The Queensland lungfish has a good set of gills, and rarely needs to breathe air. (Fig. 2-05) It uses the lung for air breathing when it is stressed, or needs extra oxygen.
Quote:
The organ of smell of a lungfish has nothing to do with breathing. It is used to pick up the scent of other animals in the water. Air does not pass through the organ of smell, when the lungfish draws air into its mouth.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 01:51 PM   #49
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymez View Post
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.
Where did this plentiful food come from? If every species exists in the ocean, there would be none on the land.

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.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 02:12 PM   #50
Haymez
Decidedly Epic
 
Haymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The land of balloons and dirt
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Skype™ to Haymez
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Where did this plentiful food come from? If every species exists in the ocean, there would be none on the land.

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.
Plants. Who are there for the same reasons pointed out in my last post for animals.

The gills wouldn't start out weaker, but as the food source was found, they would develop so that they could access it.
__________________
Haymez is offline  
Closed Thread

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.