UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-07-2012, 02:33 PM   #51
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:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
...
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 can't say anything like that for certain because I can't predict the future. Evolution does not have a definite or intended path. Just because something now has proto-wings does not necessarily mean its descendants will have wings - the species could go that way, or it could go and lose these flaps, or it could remain essentially unchanged, or different populations of it could go seperate paths. There's really no way of knowing where they'll go ahead of time.

My point was - leaving biology aside, from a purely physics standpoint, these structures have a similar design, shape and function to wings, but the flying squirrel lacks the necessary "wing" surface area and strength to support its mass. They are, in the essential aspects, the same as the "half-formed wings" you earlier claimed "would pose a serious survival risk to the creature" - and they don't seem to be doing to flying squirrel any harm.

Quote:
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.
What exactly is your hypothesis? That all current species have existed since the dawn of life on earth three and a half billion years ago, alongside all the species that have gone extinct since then? Or has God directly intervened repeatedly since then to create new species in each mass extinction event? Just realised that for three pages of discussion, I don't actually know.
__________________
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 02:43 PM.
Concept is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 03:10 PM   #52
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
Plants. Who are there for the same reasons pointed out in my last post for animals.
Except, I don't think anyone has ever made the case for evolution of plants, except in passing to include them as a portion of those organisms that evolve from single-celled organisms. And your assuming a linear progression of evolution, which is Concept is adamantly arguing against.

Quote:
The gills wouldn't start out weaker, but as the food source was found, they would develop so that they could access it.
So, in essence: Lamarck's Theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
I can't say anything like that for certain because I can't predict the future. Evolution does not have a definite or intended path. Just because something now has proto-wings does not necessarily mean its descendants will have wings - the species could go that way, or it could go and lose these flaps, or it could remain essentially unchanged, or different populations of it could go seperate paths. There's really no way of knowing where they'll go ahead of time.
So, evolution is completely random?
That doesn't fit all that well with Survival of the Fittest. I'll get back to the "random" point in a future post.

Quote:
My point was - leaving biology aside, from a purely physics standpoint, these structures have a similar design, shape and function to wings, but the flying squirrel lacks the necessary "wing" surface area and strength to support its mass. They are, in the essential aspects, the same as the "half-formed wings" you earlier claimed "would pose a serious survival risk to the creature" - and they don't seem to be doing to flying squirrel any harm.
You can't ever divorce the separate sciences from each other, or you're just asking for problems.

Also, they are not, in the essential aspects, the same as the half-formed wing I claimed, because, a half-formed wing on a Raptor would be detrimental to it's survival, while the "skin" on a Flying Squirrel, is part of it's only survival mechanism.


Quote:
So what exactly is your hypothesis? That all current species have existed since the dawn of life on earth three and a half billion years ago, alongside all the species that have gone extinct since then? Or has God directly intervened repeatedly since then to create new species in each mass extinction event?
Species, being a term that can not be defined accurately...

My Hypothesis is, all the DNA sequences of Life, have existed together since the dawn of life on earth, which is not as old as we are told. During their tenture, these life forms have varied slightly, within their DNA origins, for good and for ill, and others have become extinct due to certain conditions and circumstances.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 03:13 PM   #53
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
Can you offer any substantive scientific proof for why your theory is right, unownmew? It must be pretty compelling for you to believe it rather than a widely accepted scientific fact.
Amras.MG is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 03:26 PM   #54
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
Also, you say "not as old as we are told." What gives you reason to believe this?
__________________
phoopes is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 03:27 PM   #55
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Exhibit 2

The Odds of Evolution:

Quote:
Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramsinghe independently concluded (in mathematical jargon) the odds of the spark of life originating at random to be 10 to the power of 40,000. This is the figure; (the odds are) 1/1 followed by 40,000 zeroes, (Daily Express 14/8/81).

In "Hoyle on Evolution" he notes; "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

To give a comparison of these infinitesimal odds. . .

According to other science aspects, there are approximately only 1 followed by 22 zeroes stars in the universe and any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the power of 110 cannot occur. (40,000 zeroes is approximately 12 pages of typed zeroes). I note casinos and bookies too give much better odds.
Quote:
It is freely acknowledged that nature works in "symbiotic balance." The food chains depend on it. Certain species are hunters/predators of others. These in turn have their own predatory source(s) and so on. So how does the evolutionist explain such queries as "Who came first—the bee or the flower?" and "The hunted animal or the hunter?" "The male or the female?" "The chicken or the egg?" The fossil record indicates sudden life form appearances at similarperiods in time of many animals, plants, insects etc. working in harmony with (the rest of) nature in aid of species survival and the relevant support systems.

Without the natural balance inherent in the co-existing species, a short-term dominance of the predators would occur, followed in the long term with extinction for all life-forms. (A classic Australian example is that of the rabbit. Introduced from overseas, it has ravaged certain parts of this land where exists no natural predator to cull it's numbers; the existing plant life is destroyed thus indirectly unbalancing the food chain of the higher life forms originally existing on the surrounding vegetation and so on. . .)
Source upon request. Discuss the merits of the claim.



Interestingly enough, The Theory of Evolution is completely at odds with Environmentalism and Global Warming Activists.

Environmentalism advocates intentionally leaving species alone so they do not go extinct, and Global Warming says humanity is creating a serious climate problem, and yet, Darwinism says each creature must adapt or die. If Humanity's "exploitation" of the environment, and "Extreme warming of the planet" is problematic, then the creatures should evolve under the duress, just like they have in every other catastrophic extinction event.

And yet they apparently do not, despite our encroachment.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 03:34 PM   #56
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
Can you offer any substantive scientific proof for why your theory is right, unownmew? It must be pretty compelling for you to believe it rather than a widely accepted scientific fact.
I never said it was a "Theory" I said it was my hypothesis. Which we just recently established as being different things. Nice try though.

As for proof, I have an "alternate interpretation of the Observations in the Fossil Record," various Religious Texts, as well as very heavy reasons to disbelieve "Macroevolution."
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
Also, you say "not as old as we are told." What gives you reason to believe this?
All in good time, I'll get to that, don't worry. I've just barely brought to bare my first arguments, I have many more waiting for later.

Some that, while not exactly related specifically to Evolution, completely blow out of the water traditionally held scientific beliefs, requiring new theories in many places.

Last edited by unownmew; 08-07-2012 at 03:36 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 03:37 PM   #57
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:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
So, evolution is completely random?
That doesn't fit all that well with Survival of the Fittest. I'll get back to the "random" point in a future post.
I did not say it was completely random. I said it was impossible to predict where it was going - that it had no definite or intended path. What small changes emerge are essentially random (as good as, for computational purposes), but the animals whose changes allow them a better chance to survive have therefore a better chance pass their genes on (survival of the fittest).

Quote:
Also, they are not, in the essential aspects, the same as the half-formed wing I claimed, because, a half-formed wing on a Raptor would be detrimental to it's survival, while the "skin" on a Flying Squirrel, is part of it's only survival mechanism.
You've not explained at all why it would be detrimental to its survival. Either explain clearly the essential differences between my example and the raptor thing, and exactly why those differences would be detrimental to the raptor, or drop this baseless assertion.

Quote:
Species, being a term that can not be defined accurately...

My Hypothesis is, all the DNA sequences of Life, have existed together since the dawn of life on earth, which is not as old as we are told. During their tenture, these life forms have varied slightly, within their DNA origins, for good and for ill, and others have become extinct due to certain conditions and circumstances.
The bolded bit made me laugh. I'm not going to pick apart your use of the word species - I already agreed it's impossible to use accurately :p. Besides, it'd be a meaningless sidetrack. Might ask you to clarify from time to time if I get confused, but I'm not going to challenge you on it :p.

So how old do you think life is, and what scientific evidence do you have on the age front? Also your explanation was a bit rambly - are you saying that all modern "species", broadly defined (elephants, tigers, humans, etc) existed alongside dinosaurs and whatever other extinct beasties I can think of? And if not, what are you saying?
__________________
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, 03:37 PM   #58
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 unownmew View Post
Interestingly enough, The Theory of Evolution is completely at odds with Environmentalism and Global Warming Activists.

Environmentalism advocates intentionally leaving species alone so they do not go extinct, and Global Warming says humanity is creating a serious climate problem, and yet, Darwinism says each creature must adapt or die. If Humanity's "exploitation" of the environment, and "Extreme warming of the planet" is problematic, then the creatures should evolve under the duress, just like they have in every other catastrophic extinction event.

And yet they apparently do not, despite our encroachment.
It's pretty clear now (if it wasn't already) that he's ignoring everything that isn't convenient for him.

What part of "evolution is a gradual process that takes millions of years" don't you understand?
__________________
Tyranidos is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 03:45 PM   #59
DaveTheFishGuy
Primordial Fishbeast
 
DaveTheFishGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,258
Send a message via Skype™ to DaveTheFishGuy
Relicanth

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
So, evolution is completely random?
That doesn't fit all that well with Survival of the Fittest. I'll get back to the "random" point in a future post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTheFishGuy View Post
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 I know about lungfish - I looked after a lungfish for two years during college and have a diploma in fish management and a degree in marine zoology. So linking me to things that I already know isn't really helping anything. I never said lungfish can move on land because that's ridiculous, their fins are totally ill-designed. They do have a similar base structure to that of amphibians, much moreso than other bony fish.

Their lungs are very primitive because they first appeared about 400 million years ago and haven't needed to adapt. They move slowly and don't need to breathe as much as land-based organisms, so their lung doesn't need to be as efficient as those with alveoli. I know that the Austrailian Lungfish can breathe in water just fine, but the African and South American species can't. They do drown if they can't access air to breathe.

Regarding Coelcanth and 'not needing to evolve' - there are hundreds of species that haven't changed in millions of years. The basic shark design has been consistant for around 400 million years, crocodiles similar to those today appears around 200 million years ago. Hell, bats almost as sophisticated as modern ones (bar sonar abilities) were flying around 50 mya. Evolution has a very 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' attitude. My above point stands - evolution is random. If something can be improved upon, it will be, not through choice, but because it's more successful.
DaveTheFishGuy is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 03:46 PM   #60
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quit.

Wasting.

Your.

Time.

On.

Obvious.

Troll.
Talon87 is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 03:50 PM   #61
DaveTheFishGuy
Primordial Fishbeast
 
DaveTheFishGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,258
Send a message via Skype™ to DaveTheFishGuy
Shhh Talon this is the most use I've had out of my degree in the last two years ;;
DaveTheFishGuy is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 05:59 PM   #62
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Talon, if I was really a troll, don't you think I would be messing in other topics, spending as little time as I can on replies (generally just to fire off more platitudes and hot buttons than serious discussion), and giving a general disregard to the forum rules? I'm using the Debate forum for what it's intended for, and just because you disagree with my position does not make me a troll.

Actually, comments like yours right there are more "trollish" than mine, as mine are at least on topic.

But of course you have me on ignore, so I'm just wasting my breath. But if I'm on your ignore, why aren't you just ignoring me already? -.-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
I did not say it was completely random. I said it was impossible to predict where it was going - that it had no definite or intended path. What small changes emerge are essentially random (as good as, for computational purposes), but the animals whose changes allow them a better chance to survive have therefore a better chance pass their genes on (survival of the fittest).
Then, there should also be a large number of creatures with prominent features being useless to survival, but not harmful to it either, but evolving anyway, no?

Like fish with arms (this would be greatly helpful to survival no?)
Flying Stingrays
Snails with spiked shells
Fish and reptiles with hollow bones like birds
Birds with Raptor Claws
Snakes with limbs
etc.

Why aren't there?


Also, refer to my post about the likelyhood of Evolution.

Quote:
You've not explained at all why it would be detrimental to its survival. Either explain clearly the essential differences between my example and the raptor thing, and exactly why those differences would be detrimental to the raptor, or drop this baseless assertion.
You never asked till now.

Why it would it be detrimental?

If a reptile uses it's fore legs for something other than walking, it would definitely use it's claws, probably for holding and maneuvering food. Evolving into partial wings, the reptile no longer has it's claws, and still can't fly. It has lost overall functionality, and gained nothing in return, hence a net detriment.
I suppose we could argue whether the "partial wing" actually loses the claw, or the claw disappears after the wing is fully evolved instead, causing no fewer problems, or whether the claw was really all that useful to begin with, but... moot point. The key point is the concept, losing something useful, while not yet gaining something to replace it.

Other problems with Reptiles to birds:
Assuming as we are, that evolution is random, there is no guarantee that an evolution from reptile legs to bird legs would occur at an "ideal" time during the evolutionary process. Such mutation could well occur far before the reptile evolved hollow bones or a smaller body (thus being light enough for it's new skinny weak legs to hold the body), or after the animal has evolved it's wings to have need of the small, thin branch grasping feet.
Not to mention I don't even know what you would have to do to the DNA to even start such a drastic change in anatomy from fleshy, leather-skin-covered legs (bending in one direction, allowing for easy walking) of a reptile, to the weak, thin, flesh-bare, skinless talons (bent in the complete opposite direction, allowing for easy perching and roosting, but horrible for ground travel), of a bird.

If it was really survival of the fittest, it's far more likely we'd have ended up with chicken-sized carnivorous, feathered reptiles that can fly, run, and walk, than the small little harmless birds we have today.


Quote:
The bolded bit made me laugh. I'm not going to pick apart your use of the word species - I already agreed it's impossible to use accurately :p. Besides, it'd be a meaningless sidetrack. Might ask you to clarify from time to time if I get confused, but I'm not going to challenge you on it :p.
Fair enough, I appreciate it.

Quote:
So how old do you think life is, and what scientific evidence do you have on the age front? Also your explanation was a bit rambly - are you saying that all modern "species", broadly defined (elephants, tigers, humans, etc) existed alongside dinosaurs and whatever other extinct beasties I can think of? And if not, what are you saying?
As to your second question, yes, all the modern species existed alongside the "dinosaurs" in my hypothesis.

As to the first, if I take into account Personal Religious beliefs (such as the Earth and everything in it being created in 7 of God's days and plants being created on the 3rd day, and that a single Day of God is equal to about 1000 years), I think, life is maybe around 11,000 years old at it's very earliest. 7000-8000 years old since Humanity's presence.

Regarding my proof, nothing so far outside of Religious Text, The age of the earth is not something I've actually looked into studying yet, I've simply assumed it since it fit with what I knew already. But such an argument regarding Earth's age may crop up later in further evidence I bring to the table.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTheFishGuy View Post


Also I know about lungfish - I looked after a lungfish for two years during college and have a diploma in fish management and a degree in marine zoology. So linking me to things that I already know isn't really helping anything. I never said lungfish can move on land because that's ridiculous, their fins are totally ill-designed. They do have a similar base structure to that of amphibians, much moreso than other bony fish.

Neat, I wasn't aware of that. Cool.

Quote:
Their lungs are very primitive because they first appeared about 400 million years ago and haven't needed to adapt. They move slowly and don't need to breathe as much as land-based organisms, so their lung doesn't need to be as efficient as those with alveoli. I know that the Austrailian Lungfish can breathe in water just fine, but the African and South American species can't. They do drown if they can't access air to breathe.

Regarding Coelcanth and 'not needing to evolve' - there are hundreds of species that haven't changed in millions of years. The basic shark design has been consistant for around 400 million years, crocodiles similar to those today appears around 200 million years ago. Hell, bats almost as sophisticated as modern ones (bar sonar abilities) were flying around 50 mya. Evolution has a very 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' attitude. My above point stands - evolution is random. If something can be improved upon, it will be, not through choice, but because it's more successful.
And why can't that "not needing to evolve" hold true for all creatures on earth? That's my point there.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-07-2012, 09:58 PM   #63
Ethereal
Creepy Hand Person
 
Ethereal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,988
Send a message via AIM to Ethereal Send a message via MSN to Ethereal Send a message via Skype™ to Ethereal
>snakes with limbs

I think you mean lizards.
__________________
Ethereal is offline  
Old 08-08-2012, 02:28 AM   #64
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
>Fish and reptiles with hollow bones like birds

I'll do you one better. Sharks.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 08-08-2012, 09:32 AM   #65
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
Cartilidge =/= hollow bones, Rangeet. Saying that now before UM picks you apart.
__________________
phoopes is offline  
Old 08-08-2012, 10:09 AM   #66
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 phoopes View Post
Cartilidge =/= hollow bones, Rangeet. Saying that now before UM picks you apart.
Hence the "I'll do you one better."
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 08-08-2012, 10:14 AM   #67
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
Ah, my mistake. Sorry bout that.
__________________
phoopes is offline  
Old 08-08-2012, 01:16 PM   #68
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
If you address anything, address this:

Quote:
It is freely acknowledged that nature works in "symbiotic balance." The food chains depend on it. Certain species are hunters/predators of others. These in turn have their own predatory source(s) and so on. So how does the evolutionist explain such queries as "Who came first—the bee or the flower?" and "The hunted animal or the hunter?" "The male or the female?" "The chicken or the egg?" The fossil record indicates sudden life form appearances at similarperiods in time of many animals, plants, insects etc. working in harmony with (the rest of) nature in aid of species survival and the relevant support systems.

Without the natural balance inherent in the co-existing species, a short-term dominance of the predators would occur, followed in the long term with extinction for all life-forms. (A classic Australian example is that of the rabbit. Introduced from overseas, it has ravaged certain parts of this land where exists no natural predator to cull it's numbers; the existing plant life is destroyed thus indirectly unbalancing the food chain of the higher life forms originally existing on the surrounding vegetation and so on. . .)
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-08-2012, 09:30 PM   #69
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
I'm going to point out the Fatal Flaws in each argument listed here and explain a bit more if necessary.

Quote:
It is freely acknowledged that nature works in "symbiotic balance." The food chains depend on it. Certain species are hunters/predators of others. These in turn have their own predatory source(s) and so on. So how does the evolutionist explain such queries as "Who came first—the bee or the flower?" and "The hunted animal or the hunter?" "The male or the female?" "The chicken or the egg?" The fossil record indicates sudden life form appearances at similarperiods in time of many animals, plants, insects etc. working in harmony with (the rest of) nature in aid of species survival and the relevant support systems.
The fossil record is exactly that; a fossil record. Crichton put it best when he wrote that the fossil record is a scrapbook, showing snapshots of what happened millions of years ago instead of Baby's First Hot Dog. And the fossil record reads like a scrapbook, telling us what happened when the dinosaur died and sometimes where it stepped, but it never, ever shows us what was happening at that time. For instance, the tyrannosaur's role in dinosaur food chains has been /hotly/ debated. The current consensus is that it was a predator, but there is evidence to the contrary.

It is impossible to read the fossil record like an autobiography. It will not tell you everything the dinosaur ate, nor will it tell you what color the animal was, or where it went at different times of the year, or how it behaved when confronted with a predator or with prey. We have very educated guesses, and we have examples based on animals still existing, but we cannot know the exact ecology of the system.

And getting more finely to the point, we don't have all the fossils. Some beasts weren't fossilized at all, or were lost to time, or are still embedded deep in the earth somewhere. So, to combine both points, we have snapshots of various periods in various creatures' life. Let's say we took a bunch of snapshots at the moment of death of every creature on the planet, doing different things in different places. Then, we scattered them to the bottom of the ocean and sent a submersible down with no windows to pick up all the photos that survived. Let's say it through some miracle managed to pick up 10,000 photos, with about 1/4 of all species represented, most of these vertebrates.

And let's say you tried to figure out what life was like for all these species. It's difficult, isn't it? Who eats what? Are they intelligent? Why are those primates in all different colors? Now make it even harder for yourself and dig up complete skeletons of extinct creatures and try to piece together what life must have been like for them. Sure, we have clues in animals that exist today, but that doesn't make our job any easier and we have maybe eighteen to twenty of the pieces in a fifty-piece puzzle.

So it would be pretty easy to see a new creature in the fossil record and go "zomg that creature appeared out of NOWHERE OH SWEET JESUS IT'S CREATIONISM AT IT'S FINEST." And any scientists who claim they know everything about dinosaurs and ancient or extinct creatures are either the proud owners of a time machine and the Fountain of Youth and have an iq of 300 or batshit insane. Because this ignorance works both ways. But hope remains, for the information touted as reliable can reasonably be used as fact (which prehistoric beasties are carnivores and which ones are herbivores, for example).

Quote:
Without the natural balance inherent in the co-existing species, a short-term dominance of the predators would occur, followed in the long term with extinction for all life-forms. (A classic Australian example is that of the rabbit. Introduced from overseas, it has ravaged certain parts of this land where exists no natural predator to cull it's numbers; the existing plant life is destroyed thus indirectly unbalancing the food chain of the higher life forms originally existing on the surrounding vegetation and so on. . .)
The example, for one thing, assumes that bringing a coupla rabbits to Australia is exactly the same thing as being missing your plants for hundreds of years. The rabbit is a non-native species that is messing up Australian ecology. While the example is true in that the rabbit is poised to singlehandedly cause the death of the rest of the species on the continent while RABBIT REIGNS SUPREME, it is also very false in that this is a completely unnatural occurrence that is about as likely as getting struck by lightning, stealing the crown jewels, and getting hit by a meteor all at the same time. (exaggeration in this case is probably not too far off the mark, as intercontinental exchange (excepting that of north/south america, new zealand/australia, and africa/europe/asia) usually only happens during an ice age due to the immense body of water spanning between each continent).

And if two species are split in half due to some ecological circumstance, they have been proven to develop differently. For instance, two fish separated by a change in water level in a lake may have a common ancestor, but they are different species entirely and followed the fast track to being different colors, different shapes, and different sizes. And no, simple variation between individuals of a given species is definitely out of the question because the individuals involved cannot produce viable offspring. They're entirely different now in the sense that a lion and tiger are entirely different, or a horse and a donkey. Sure, they can make a baby together, but the baby can't make more babies so it all ends there.

Oh dear, I've been typing too much. I hope that explained at least something and made sense on some level.
__________________
Shuckle is offline  
Old 08-09-2012, 10:00 AM   #70
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
I'm going to point out the Fatal Flaws in each argument listed here and explain a bit more if necessary.

The fossil record is exactly that; a fossil record. Crichton put it best when he wrote that the fossil record is a scrapbook, showing snapshots of what happened millions of years ago instead of Baby's First Hot Dog. And the fossil record reads like a scrapbook, telling us what happened when the dinosaur died and sometimes where it stepped, but it never, ever shows us what was happening at that time. For instance, the tyrannosaur's role in dinosaur food chains has been /hotly/ debated. The current consensus is that it was a predator, but there is evidence to the contrary.

It is impossible to read the fossil record like an autobiography. It will not tell you everything the dinosaur ate, nor will it tell you what color the animal was, or where it went at different times of the year, or how it behaved when confronted with a predator or with prey. We have very educated guesses, and we have examples based on animals still existing, but we cannot know the exact ecology of the system.

And getting more finely to the point, we don't have all the fossils. Some beasts weren't fossilized at all, or were lost to time, or are still embedded deep in the earth somewhere. So, to combine both points, we have snapshots of various periods in various creatures' life. Let's say we took a bunch of snapshots at the moment of death of every creature on the planet, doing different things in different places. Then, we scattered them to the bottom of the ocean and sent a submersible down with no windows to pick up all the photos that survived. Let's say it through some miracle managed to pick up 10,000 photos, with about 1/4 of all species represented, most of these vertebrates.

And let's say you tried to figure out what life was like for all these species. It's difficult, isn't it? Who eats what? Are they intelligent? Why are those primates in all different colors? Now make it even harder for yourself and dig up complete skeletons of extinct creatures and try to piece together what life must have been like for them. Sure, we have clues in animals that exist today, but that doesn't make our job any easier and we have maybe eighteen to twenty of the pieces in a fifty-piece puzzle.

So it would be pretty easy to see a new creature in the fossil record and go "zomg that creature appeared out of NOWHERE OH SWEET JESUS IT'S CREATIONISM AT IT'S FINEST." And any scientists who claim they know everything about dinosaurs and ancient or extinct creatures are either the proud owners of a time machine and the Fountain of Youth and have an iq of 300 or batshit insane. Because this ignorance works both ways. But hope remains, for the information touted as reliable can reasonably be used as fact (which prehistoric beasties are carnivores and which ones are herbivores, for example).
That's all well and good, but I'm afraid the time was wasted. The quote was not referring to identifying where in the ecological balance the fossilized creatures were, nor to say that they "sprang up into existence out of nowher"e. The quote was referring to the fact that nature, out of necessity, MUST work in a symbiotic balance, or else it risks nonexistence. There is no place in a "necessary Symbiosis" for "random evolution," especially, when we are talking about evolution of higher life forms.

It was asking you, the evolutionist, to explain, how, if evolution truly is as random as claimed, How, do you explain Plants evolving first, and then animals?
If the animals evolved before the plants, there would be no food for the animals to eat, and then they would die out, and the "Chances" of another evolution event would have to be reset, requiring another "Millions of years."

And, if plants evolved first, how do you explain herbivores and carnivores evolving at essentially the same time? If the herbivores evolved without carnivores, the herbivores would have no check, and would quickly eat the plants out of existence, then dieing out, and requiring another evolution event requring another millions of years.
If the Carnivores evolved before the herbivores there would be no food to begin with and the evolution would cease before it began, requiring another evolution event lasting millions of years.

The question is, How then do you explain this inherent, necessary, mutual evolution of all higher forms of life at essentially the same time? Because evolution can NOT occur out of order, or it fails. And yet the chances of it occurring in the first place, never mind In order, are well beyond reason:
Quote:
Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramsinghe independently concluded (in mathematical jargon) the odds of the spark of life originating at random to be 10 to the power of 40,000. This is the figure; (the odds are) 1/1 followed by 40,000 zeroes, (Daily Express 14/8/81).

In "Hoyle on Evolution" he notes; "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

To give a comparison of these infinitesimal odds. . .

According to other science aspects, there are approximately only 1 followed by 22 zeroes stars in the universe and any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the power of 110 cannot occur. (40,000 zeroes is approximately 12 pages of typed zeroes). I note casinos and bookies too give much better odds.

Quote:
The example, for one thing, assumes that bringing a coupla rabbits to Australia is exactly the same thing as being missing your plants for hundreds of years. The rabbit is a non-native species that is messing up Australian ecology. While the example is true in that the rabbit is poised to singlehandedly cause the death of the rest of the species on the continent while RABBIT REIGNS SUPREME, it is also very false in that this is a completely unnatural occurrence that is about as likely as getting struck by lightning, stealing the crown jewels, and getting hit by a meteor all at the same time. (exaggeration in this case is probably not too far off the mark, as intercontinental exchange (excepting that of north/south america, new zealand/australia, and africa/europe/asia) usually only happens during an ice age due to the immense body of water spanning between each continent).
Actually, it's not unnatural at all, unless you consider humanity to be "unnatural," which goes completely at odds with your theory of evolution. :P
As for likely hood, I'd say it's far more likely than the odds of life occurring in the first place (see above quote).

Quote:
And if two species are split in half due to some ecological circumstance, they have been proven to develop differently. For instance, two fish separated by a change in water level in a lake may have a common ancestor, but they are different species entirely and followed the fast track to being different colors, different shapes, and different sizes. And no, simple variation between individuals of a given species is definitely out of the question because the individuals involved cannot produce viable offspring. They're entirely different now in the sense that a lion and tiger are entirely different, or a horse and a donkey. Sure, they can make a baby together, but the baby can't make more babies so it all ends there.
Until you can prove the fish actually have such a common ancestor, and you haven't found just another fish which is now extinct, which seems to have similarities to both of those fish which are "assumed" to be decedent from it. I don't think we can be talking about "facts" on this matter. Why couldn't all 3 fish have existed at the same time?

Last edited by unownmew; 08-09-2012 at 10:05 AM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-09-2012, 09:15 PM   #71
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Why is this a thread.

This is stupid.

Why is this even being debated.

I mean holy fuck, how can people still not accept evolution?
__________________





MAL - Fizzy Bubbles - Twitter



deoxys is offline  
Old 08-09-2012, 11:39 PM   #72
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 deoxys View Post
I mean holy fuck, how can people still not accept evolution?
They think that every animal has been here for the same amount time and the Earth is only, like, 4000 years old despite having fossils dating back far longer than that.
__________________
Eternally TL4 4-EVER For All of Infinite Time
kusari is offline  
Old 08-10-2012, 08:45 PM   #73
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
Why I closed the thread (at least for now):

Firstly, it's clearly targeted at unownmew and his creationist beliefs. It's not a debate, it's an outright attack on him.

Secondly, it's not a debate when it's neither side is willing to accept the other side might be correct and possibly convinced. unownmew shows no signs of accepting Evolution as scientific fact and the rest of you aren't accepting Creationism as any sort of fact.

Thirdly, most of you do not carry a scientific degree or specialize in evolution. I don't expect any of you will be able to give him such absolute facts that he will turn around and agree with anything.
Loki 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 09:07 AM.


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