Thread: Evolution

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,066
    First, there are many things that various plants, animals and insects can do that are written off as an “evolved” trait. The question no Darwinist has ever answered properly is how. If needed traits evolved over time, how did the plant, animal, or insect know it needed that trait? For example, if a beetle is the same color as the plants it lives in, it is commonly said that the beetle evolved that color as a defense against predators. This would seem to denote an intelligent decision: “Things are eating us. We would probably be better off if we were green, like these leaves. Then the things eating us would have a harder time seeing us.”

    Second, there are many unanswered questions about how life actually began. There are many theories, but zero proof. A promoter of evolution would say that there is no proof of God either. That just means we’re on the same page, doesn’t it?

    Third, there are many species that are essentially unchanged for millions of years. Turn on any National Geographic special about sharks, alligators, many insects and others and at some point you will hear that the subject of the documentary is “essentially unchanged from (insert millions of years here) ago.” How can that be? We are told that species continually evolve to pick up useful traits and lose bad ones. So why have sharks never evolved to breath air or walk up onto the beach so they can swipe some sunbathers to go with their usual fare? Why did all these creatures stop evolving when there are so many things that could be improved upon?

    Fourth, there is the whole “missing link” problem. Every other year, we are told that scientists have finally found the missing link between man’s earlier forms and Homo Sapiens. They have found two in the last two years. Wait, was that two missing links?

    Last, there is carbon dating. It’s not that accurate, and it doesn’t go back far enough to prove anything. Look it up, kids.

    http://www.theconservativereview.com...omething-more/
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I do question the random part. There are fossils of extinct animals.

    However, let's put it another way. Suppose your cat gives birth to kittens. You have three gray kittens and two yellow kittens. This probably happened because gray is dominant over yellow. Now, suppose one of the yellow kittens is very sick and is a runt. You try to feed it to get it to health, but it dies. So now, you have three gray kittens and one yellow kitten. The gray is being passed on more than the yellow. Therefore, you'll see more gray cats come from that litter.
    There are several problems with your analogy. I will start with two.

    1) How does a kitten being gray make it more fit. Because Darwin's theory says the fittest survive. Are you suggesting fur pigmentation is genetically tied to birth weight? Because otherwise, this doesnt exactly support Darwin.

    2) Darwins theory is about mutations. Did one of the kittens have a mutation to change his color? Or is this simply an inherited trait with a dominant/recessive gene. Because if it's an inherited trait and gene expression, then it doesn't really support Darwin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,274
    The truth of the matter is, we simply don't know and have no way of finding out for sure until we meet our maker. This is why the Theory of Evolution is exactly that: a theory. It's someone's interpretation of how things came to be. That said, what explanation is more plausible; the one where a supreme being got bored and decided to create a planet, day, night, Heaven, earth, animals, and finally man & woman with just a snap of his finger or that a series of happenstances, accidents, and just plain luck? The evolution theory is the latter here. Also, I don't buy into the theory for this reason: everything would have the same DNA if we all sprung from the same goo, no? But as we all know from science class(Lanie) that we can't mate with bugs let alone with a dog or a baboon or a tree. Why don't humans have some kind of venom or stinger? Why can't we breathe under water? Why can't a dog fly? There's just too many differences to think that there wan't some kind of design to the way things are.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    There are several problems with your analogy. I will start with two.

    1) How does a kitten being gray make it more fit. Because Darwin's theory says the fittest survive. Are you suggesting fur pigmentation is genetically tied to birth weight? Because otherwise, this doesnt exactly support Darwin.
    It's random. It just happens that the yellow kitten had an illness. It could have been something from a gene passed down from mommy yellow kitty or it could have been a mutation. The point is the other kittens will grow up and pass their genes along, while this kitten won't.

    I don't know if fur makes a difference in regards to illnesses, but we learned in biology class that race did years ago. A white person is more likely to get Cystic Fibrosis than a black person.Even then, there are particular types of white people who tend to get it. A black person is more likely to get sickle-cell anemia than a white person.
    So, imagine all the possibilities when re-producing if they stay within their race vs. when they don't.


    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    2) Darwins theory is about mutations. Did one of the kittens have a mutation to change his color? Or is this simply an inherited trait with a dominant/recessive gene. Because if it's an inherited trait and gene expression, then it doesn't really support Darwin.
    Usually, it is about genes. However, mutations do happen. If particular types of animals tend to live more often for physical or environmental reasons, then that's natural selection. Darwin is not just about mutations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    The truth of the matter is, we simply don't know and have no way of finding out for sure until we meet our maker. This is why the Theory of Evolution is exactly that: a theory. It's someone's interpretation of how things came to be. That said, what explanation is more plausible; the one where a supreme being got bored and decided to create a planet, day, night, Heaven, earth, animals, and finally man & woman with just a snap of his finger or that a series of happenstances, accidents, and just plain luck? The evolution theory is the latter here. Also, I don't buy into the theory for this reason: everything would have the same DNA if we all sprung from the same goo, no? But as we all know from science class(Lanie) that we can't mate with bugs let alone with a dog or a baboon or a tree. Why don't humans have some kind of venom or stinger? Why can't we breathe under water? Why can't a dog fly? There's just too many differences to think that there wan't some kind of design to the way things are.
    Thing is evolution itself is fact. Mutations are facts. Bacteria resisting anti-biotics because a piece of it mutates is fact. I could tell you all about how I went to the doctor twice and how anti-biotics couldn't get rid of my problem years ago (eventually tried herbs and it worked). Particular species dying out while others don't is fact. If I take a polar bear down to Florida right now when it hasn't had a chance to get used to warm weather, it will die. Now, suppose polar bears started migrating over thousands of years toward the south. At some point, they might be okay with Florida. It's a change.

    I don't think God has a problem with us thinking this stuff out.

    The reason Darwin's theory is called a theory is because it's the theory of how evolution works (natural selection, survival of the fittest). That doesn't make evolution itself unreal. There were scientists such as Mendel finding similar stuff long before Darwin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    It's random. It just happens that the yellow kitten had an illness. It could have been something from a gene passed down from mommy yellow kitty or it could have been a mutation. The point is the other kittens will grow up and pass their genes along, while this kitten won't.
    Well, okay then it's easy. Because if the kitten's death is only coincidentally related to the fur color, then you have just disproven Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory is about fitness, if the kitten's death is arbitrary then fitness doesn't come into play. I would reflect on this if I were you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I don't know if fur makes a difference in regards to illnesses, but we learned in biology class that race did years ago. A white person is more likely to get Cystic Fibrosis than a black person.Even then, there are particular types of white people who tend to get it. A black person is more likely to get sickle-cell anemia than a white person.
    Once again you are disproving Darwin's theory. Because if Darwin were correct, then these people wouldn't exist. The specific genes would have disappeared from the gene pool, because clearly having cystic fibrosis which kills you pretty young severely impacts your fitness.

    So I find it very difficult to argue with you because, based on your posts, you seem to only posses a 5th or 6th grade understanding of the subject. I mean, an understanding of the Theory you are trying to advocate. You are mixing up completely different topics such as genes, genotypes, phenotypes, gene expression, evolution, and Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

    I mean, you do realize there is a world of difference between evolution and Darwin's Theory of Evolution. There are tons of theories of evolution. Have you ever heard of Lamarckian evolution? What about Baldwinian Evolution? Darwin formed his theory of evolution to explain the observation that phenotypes in a population tend to shift over time. Nobody is arguing that phenotypes never shift in populations. What we are arguing is the specific mechanics, and whether or not Darwin's theory of these mechanics is an accurate explanation.

    Your example on inheritance is like a schoolchild's illustration of the work of Reginald Punnett which is actually a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. So I'm really beginning to doubt whether you understand the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Usually, it is about genes. However, mutations do happen.
    Mutations happen in genes, Lanie. Using your kitten example, there is no possibility for a kitten with blue fur to exist. Because absent any mutation, a kitten can only have fur that its parents have the genes for. If this were true, then you basically have once again made the case for the Creationists. You cannot have Darwin's Theory of Evolution without mutations.

    "Usually, it is about genes. However, mutations do happen." I mean honestly -- what does this even mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    If particular types of animals tend to live more often for physical or environmental reasons then that's natural selection
    This is a massive mischaracterization of Darwin.

    Darwin's Theory is not about how long an organism lives. It is exclusively about how many offspring an organism has, and how many of those offspring are able to produce offspring of their own and pass on genetic material. Darwin's argument is that this is based around fitness for survival. I mean it's like you don't even understand the Theory you are debating.

    Because if what I quoted from you were true, Salmon and the Preying Mantis wouldn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Darwin is not just about mutations.
    Darwin is necessarily about mutations. The theory has to be. Because if mutations didn't exist, then we wouldn't have divergent species we would merely have different expressions of the same genetic code. Basically because without mutations, the entire animal kingdom when added together would have exactly the same genetic code whenever life arose (which, again, would prove Creationists right). So Darwin's whole theory is based around mutations... it has to be to even work. I mean, you understand how at a cellular level sexual reproduction works, right?

    I don't mean to be mean here but maybe I should try arguing for Darwin's Theory, and you should try arguing against. It might be easier for you.
    Last edited by m00; 10-10-2012 at 09:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Thing is evolution itself is fact.
    Um, no it's not. If it were fact then it would be the law of evolution and not a theory. Like the law of gravity. But answer the rest of my question? The theory is that certain beings develop defense mechanisms like a stink bug's odor or a skunk's spray. Human's, if you want to believe we evolved from apes, were certainly not at the top of the food chain so why didn't we develop some kind of defense mechanism outside of fight or flight? Why can't I spit in someone's eye and blind them like a cobra? Also, why don't dogs see in color? They have eyes same as me do they not? Again, there's just too much going on there for every little accident, mutation, happenstance to all fall into place.

    Oh, and I didn't forget. I'm still waiting for the Bible passage where it says God created the world in 7 24 hour days(incidentally, it was 6 days. God rested on the 7th hence the Sabbath).
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    You are making my head spin, Lanie. Let me take a second and unpack this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Thing is evolution itself is fact.
    The 'fact' of evolution is that phenotypes in an isolated population will shift over time. Nobody is arguing this. evolution is entirely different than Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Mutations are facts.
    Nobody is arguing this, except for you it seems like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Bacteria resisting anti-biotics because a piece of it mutates is fact.
    False, false, false, false. This would be Lamarckian Evolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Under Darwin, Bacteria resists anti-biotics because all the bacteria that didn't resist the anti-biotics were killed. But actually if you look at studies, the growth rates are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I could tell you all about how I went to the doctor twice and how anti-biotics couldn't get rid of my problem years ago (eventually tried herbs and it worked).
    Anecdotal evidence for a theory that spans billions of years? Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Particular species dying out while others don't is fact.
    Darwin's Theory explains why species go extinct, not that they go extinct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    If I take a polar bear down to Florida right now when it hasn't had a chance to get used to warm weather, it will die.
    False.

    It will not die from the heat. It might have a problem competing for food with other predators, but the heat won't kill it.

    http://news.discovery.com/animals/po...n-warming.html

    What's even more interesting, is that polar bears can mate with grizzly bears and produce sexually reproductive offspring, which is generally the litmus test for actually being the same species.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...zly_bears.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Now, suppose polar bears started migrating over thousands of years toward the south. At some point, they might be okay with Florida. It's a change.
    So is this the Theory of "Might Be Okay With Change, At Some Point"?


    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I don't think God has a problem with us thinking this stuff out.
    The only person mentioning God is you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    The reason Darwin's theory is called a theory is because it's the theory of how evolution works (natural selection, survival of the fittest). That doesn't make evolution itself unreal.
    Um, Darwin's Theory it's called a Theory because it fits the scientific model for a Theory. Once again you are confusing Darwin's Theory of Evolution, with the word evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    There were scientists such as Mendel finding similar stuff long before Darwin.
    Mendel wasn't a scientist "finding similar stuff" he was a Augustinian Friar investigating botanical phenotypes. Which is, again, completely different from Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

    If you want to debate, you need to be accurate about the concepts you are debating.
    Last edited by m00; 10-10-2012 at 10:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Resident Grandpa marv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Shell Knob, MO
    Posts
    3,035
    What's missing in this discussion is the Big Bang theory. Now, it's also a theory because it can't be replicated to be examined for provenance. Every religion, at least those that I'm familiar with, contain some concept of a creation. We can now add astrophysics. The Big Bang started as a "nothing", and evolved into a "something" we call the Universe.

    I'll add my own. The Universe is infinite in both dimension and duration. It's always been here. At least that's the opinion I came up with after I gave up religion over 55 years ago. I'm confident that it'll always be here even if our galaxy and the cluster it's in go away. That's evolution.

    Now, as to evolution. It's observable and very provable by demonstration in both the laboratory and in nature, and it's supported with fossil evidence. So it's not just theory, it's real. Sometimes evolution is punctuate, and sometimes it's adaptive.

    My 2¢........

    http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/images/allen-west.jpg

    Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

    THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,274
    Quote Originally Posted by marv View Post

    So it's not just theory, it's real. Sometimes evolution is punctuate, and sometimes it's adaptive.
    If this were true then it could cease being a theory now would it.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •