You can not simply say you believe in micro-evolution and not believe in macro-evolution. It is a paradox.
Oh, I can. I believe in parts of things all the time. It's called forming your own opinion. I probably don't believe in the officialized version of microevolution, though/
I think you can evolve little things. Cat breeds, beaks. And bacteria can do whatever the heck it wants. That's about it.
if youre serious, its because theres nothing driving tigers to fly yet, or have immunity to radiation. tigers are actually an apex predator in their natural environments.
If there was something to drive tigers to fly or have immunity to radiation, do you know what would happen?
They would die out.
You can say that we are another species of a lost primate, and we survived because out intelligence had such a huge advantage over the rest the primates that we literally exploded in population.
If I have my biology correct. We aren't here because of our inteligence, which does have a small part in why we did survive. We are here because everybody had sex, lots and lots of sexy sex, and rubbers didn't exist way back when.
And quoted from the South Park episode Do the Handicapped go to Hell?:
"It's a man's obligation to stick his boneration in a woman's separation. This sort of penetration will increase the population of the younger generation."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just as the Scorpion hunts...
Silently Lurking...
"Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted." ~ Ezio Auditore de Firenze
if youre serious, its because theres nothing driving tigers to fly yet, or have immunity to radiation. tigers are actually an apex predator in their natural environments.
If there was something to drive tigers to fly or have immunity to radiation, do you know what would happen?
They would die out.
i doubt anything could drive tigers to grow wings, but immunity to radiation wouldnt be so out of this world. maybe just a more protective membrane or resistant DNA. who knows. theres always the possibility they dont evolve and just become extinct.
macroevo doesnt have to be so dramatic. it could be as simple as a snails shell colour changing to avoid being eaten.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
You can not simply say you believe in micro-evolution and not believe in macro-evolution. It is a paradox.
Oh, I can. I believe in parts of things all the time. It's called forming your own opinion. I probably don't believe in the officialized version of microevolution, though/
I think you can evolve little things. Cat breeds, beaks. And bacteria can do whatever the heck it wants. That's about it.
Yet even if you believe in any type of evolution, you are self-contradicting when you say that you don't believe in grand scale evolution because the only difference is time scale. You are forgetting that the Earth is 5 billion years, and life had a lot of time to evolve. Ignoring all the transitional fossils we have found, you can "say" that we haven't seen any evolution take place. Well great! Fantastic! Dependable observations has only been around for only so long. Can you really throw away an entire theory in which we have so much proof for because the dependable observations of 3000 years supposedly did not find something evolving into a flying radiation immune T-Rex?
Also you throw in why humans don't have 6 arms, 9 feet tall, have wings, and breathe fire? Well, I believe you don't understand how evolution works. Evolution only works to better suit the specimen to suit their current environment. This is why we don't see giraffes in North America, or penguins in the Sahara. The only time you can see "super" species are the dinosaurs, and that created one of the golden ages of the life on Earth. Yet when mammals evolved, why didn't they evolve into terminators? Because evolution among prey are usually to hide and stay low, since it creates the highest rate of survival. And when that happens, which predator is usually the most dominant? The one that can stay quiet, and let the prey move out and so it can sneak up on it. A popular hypothesis is that the primary source of food among dinosaurs was other dinosaurs, and not mammals, because that dinosaur prey was larger and easier to access.
Evolution only suits to help animals deal with their environments. It's not a factory that creates a the best animal, it simply helps it compete with other animals or deal with their natural environment.
Charmander evolves into Charmeleon, by the way. Clearing up any confusion.
On a more serious note, I do not know much about this topic as it never interested me. However, what I hear from people is that while there is some pretty strong evidence for it, there is not a vast amount, and a lot of it is disproved. In order for me to believe something, it has to be pretty damn well proven.
If you radiate a bunch of tigers they'll mostly die. If a few tigers with amazing genes survive they won't be able to raise too much offspring anyway. Species are extremely fragile and die the moment you stare at them. That's why every time humans fuck something up a bunch of species go extinct. They don't adapt. They DIE.
If you are too slow to run from a predator, you will die. You will not give birth to offspring that will run faster because you have died before you were able to do that.
Most changes are tied to very minor things such as competition within the species itself (who gets better fruit). How that would make you fly or develop eyesight is beyond me.
You say there's no reason for tigers to fly: my point exactly.
Evolution/adaptation seems to require extremely specific conditions to work. Not too bad, not too good, just right, with a bunch of conditions, which makes it sound more like an engineered thing than a random process. Maybe it's possible, maybe it's not, I'm not supposed to just blindly believe in it just because the idea is there, and so far I felt it was a stretch more than anything.
macroevo doesnt have to be so dramatic. it could be as simple as a snails shell colour changing to avoid being eaten.
The kind of macroevolution I'm skeptical of is the lizards turning into birds, development of eyes, and the whole "humans evolved from some low level organism" idea.
Quote from "Irrational" »
Yet even if you believe in any type of evolution, you are self-contradicting when you say that you don't believe in grand scale evolution because the only difference is time scale.
Which would mean everyone on the entire earth who has ever owned a breed of a cat or a dog believes in macroevolution.
I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that.
Time scales are pretty important.
Extrapolation is not considered a very viable statistical technique. Induction requires specific conditions which we don't have here. So, no, it's not paradoxical at all, just because it works on a small scale doesn't mean on large scale special conditions which we're not aware of do not apply (e.g., we need to assume we have the 100% knowledge of the function of all processes in the universe. We don't. We know so little it's not funny).
Small scale we can see. Large scale we can't. Large scale is all hoping guesses are correct, the fossil record is not that horrible, and that nothing weird happened in the process.
Quote from "Irrational" »
You are forgetting that the Earth is 5 billion years, and life had a lot of time to evolve.
We don't know how old Earth actually is. I'm forgetting unprovable things people like to claim. It can be 500b years, it can be 1 million years.
Quote from "Irrational" »
Ignoring all the transitional fossils we have found, you can "say" that we haven't seen any evolution take place.
Unfortunately, fossils do not in any way prove that evolution took place. At most, they prove that some animal existed.
Quote from "Irrational" »
Well great! Fantastic! Dependable observations has only been around for only so long. Can you really throw away an entire theory in which we have so much proof for because the dependable observations of 3000 years supposedly did not find something evolving into a flying radiation immune T-Rex?
I'll put the theory on the shelf and record it on my list of possible theories. What I am not going to do, is throw away EVERY other theory in existence (which is essentially what every evolution fan does), including those that make a lot more sense to me.
Quote from "Irrational" »
Evolution only suits to help animals deal with their environments. It's not a factory that creates a the best animal, it simply helps it compete with other animals or deal with their natural environment.
I think you took my flying radiation tiger joke too far.
If you radiate a bunch of tigers they'll mostly die. If a few tigers with amazing genes survive they won't be able to raise too much offspring anyway. Species are extremely fragile and die the moment you stare at them. That's why every time humans fuck something up a bunch of species go extinct. They don't adapt. They DIE.
If you are too slow to run from a predator, you will die. You will not give birth to offspring that will run faster because you have died before you were able to do that.
Most changes are tied to very minor things such as competition within the species itself (who gets better fruit). How that would make you fly or develop eyesight is beyond me.
You say there's no reason for tigers to fly: my point exactly.
Evolution/adaptation seems to require extremely specific conditions to work. Not too bad, not too good, just right, with a bunch of conditions, which makes it sound more like an engineered thing than a random process. Maybe it's possible, maybe it's not, I'm not supposed to just blindly believe in it just because the idea is there, and so far I felt it was a stretch more than anything.
macroevo doesnt have to be so dramatic. it could be as simple as a snails shell colour changing to avoid being eaten.
The kind of macroevolution I'm skeptical of is the lizards turning into birds, development of eyes, and the whole "humans evolved from some low level organism" idea.
yeah, if you irradiate them all within the same population and around the same time, im pretty sure they would be extinct. these changes happen very slowly, gradual change over time as darwin coined it. those that survive cataclysmic events like mass extinctions were already fit to survive them.
taking your lizard to bird flight example, there could have been many reasons for a lizard to modify its scales into feathers, for mating, getting food, escaping predators, blending in, etc. we see so many homologous features in the structures that its almost humourous to think that the creator of the universe would make some things so complex, but yet maintain a basic body plan for animals.
as for the development of eyes, we see the exact opposite of this evolutionary path when we study animals that live in caves; they all have small vestigial eyes and some have completely lost eyes altogether. yet these are closely related species to other animals with full use of eyes.
i think that its a near-miraculous that everything is where it is, the probabilities of some of these events happening is very small, but yet here we are.
ps. why are all those quotes from me lol.
edit: and i hate to bring it up, because i know u hate bacteria, but mycobacter have lost whole chunks of genes used for synthesis and reproduction because theyve been too reliant on their hosts metabolic machinery.
and what other theories? evolution is by far the most well researched and agreed upon theory for speciation. it also makes a lot of sense too me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Actually Equinox, I'm glad you brought this up. I don't you think you realize how many species are extinct because they were not equipped enough to survive changes to the environment. It happens A LOT! You are actually disproving your own argument, since the ones that evolved enough that can cope with these changes survive environmental changes can survive.
Also, radiation will kill a lot of animals, and might even kill humans, but it will actually stimulate life as well. Radiation stimulates mutation, and that is essential for the evolutionary cycle to restart and begin a new era of life.
The argument that you bring about how you can throw something at a species, and it will fall apart is not true. It is VERY hard to make a species extinct and usually takes many years, usually because you need more than one thing to kill it. Take for example a virus. No matter how devastating and incurable a virus is, genetics will prove that some animals with in a species will be immune to that virus (this has shown with the AIDS virus in humans). You will need multiple things to throw at a species to make it extinct, and that's what usually happens, usually coming in the form of lack of food and another source.
And with the transitional fossils, I hope you realize that your statement contradicts everything I know about logic. You are saying that there was an ancestor of the human being. And then it died off. But then another animal that looked like kind of like it appeared, then died. Then the next animal came, and died off again. And it went on until we reach humans. Does this make any sense at all?
Evolution doesn't seem like a big jump to me, we know for a fact all dogs were originally domesticated bread descendants of wolves, just look at a Chihuahua, that's a pretty drastic variation. I don't think it's a big stretch to fathom hundreds of millions of years would reduce lizards to birds. Even the earliest human remains dated 160,000 ago were ever so slightly different from us.
"With these new crania," he added, "we can now see what our direct ancestors looked like."
The most complete of the three new fossil skulls, probably that of a male, is slightly larger than the extremes seen in modern Homo sapiens, yet it bears other characteristics within the range of modern humans - in particular, less prominent brow ridges than pre-Homo sapiens and a higher cranial vault. Because of these similarities, the researchers placed the fossils in the same genus and species as modern humans but appended a subspecies name - Homo sapiens idaltu -to differentiate them from contemporary humans, Homo sapiens sapiens.
Idàltu, which means "elder" in the Afar language, refers to the adult male's antiquity and individual age. The man, though probably in his late 20s to mid-30s, had heavily worn upper teeth and a brain size slightly larger than average for living people.
Oh, I can. I believe in parts of things all the time. It's called forming your own opinion. I probably don't believe in the officialized version of microevolution, though
This is akin to saying you believe in an inch, but not a foot, or a foot, but not a yard.
So, yes, you can believe in an inch and not a foot, or a foot and not a yard, but your believe in the inch or the foot simply points out that you subconsciously believe in the foot or the yard respectively.
If there was something to drive tigers to fly or have immunity to radiation, do you know what would happen?
They would die out.
Given enough time, they would develop wings, and would no longer be tigers, but another species. You are not taking into consideration the sheer lengths of time required for macro evolution.
If I have my biology correct. We aren't here because of our inteligence, which does have a small part in why we did survive. We are here because everybody had sex, lots and lots of sexy sex, and rubbers didn't exist way back when.
If you radiate a bunch of tigers they'll mostly die. If a few tigers with amazing genes survive they won't be able to raise too much offspring anyway. Species are extremely fragile and die the moment you stare at them. That's why every time humans fuck something up a bunch of species go extinct. They don't adapt. They DIE.
They are not fragile. The only reason people think they are fragile is because humanity is careless and wreckless. Are humans fragile simply because we can die from a nuke? Of course not, so ignore humanity for a moment and species are not fragile.
The kind of macroevolution I'm skeptical of is the lizards turning into birds, development of eyes, and the whole "humans evolved from some low level organism" idea.
Lizards don't turn into birds. Lizards can evolve wings with enough time, but they will never turn into birds.
Exactly. Small time scale=microevolution (The stuff you believe in.) Big time scale=lots of microevolutions=macroevolution (The stuff you claim to not believe in.)
[quote=Irrational;/comments/804109]
Evolution doesn't seem like a big jump to me, we know for a fact all dogs were originally domesticated bread descendants of wolves, just look at a Chihuahua, that's a pretty drastic variation. I don't think it's a big stretch to fathom hundreds of millions of years would reduce lizards to birds. Even the earliest human remains dated 160,000 ago were ever so slightly different from us.
"With these new crania," he added, "we can now see what our direct ancestors looked like."
The most complete of the three new fossil skulls, probably that of a male, is slightly larger than the extremes seen in modern Homo sapiens, yet it bears other characteristics within the range of modern humans - in particular, less prominent brow ridges than pre-Homo sapiens and a higher cranial vault. Because of these similarities, the researchers placed the fossils in the same genus and species as modern humans but appended a subspecies name - Homo sapiens idaltu -to differentiate them from contemporary humans, Homo sapiens sapiens.
Idàltu, which means "elder" in the Afar language, refers to the adult male's antiquity and individual age. The man, though probably in his late 20s to mid-30s, had heavily worn upper teeth and a brain size slightly larger than average for living people.
we see so many homologous features in the structures that its almost humourous to think that the creator of the universe would make some things so complex, but yet maintain a basic body plan for animals.
*looks at WoW* *sees tons of homologous features*
Come again?
I think people overestimate how complex everything is. To the creator, it probably as complex as WoW is to us.
Actually Equinox, I'm glad you brought this up. I don't you think you realize how many species are extinct because they were not equipped enough to survive changes to the environment.
It happens A LOT! You are actually disproving your own argument, since the ones that evolved enough that can cope with these changes survive environmental changes can survive.
Why would they evolve prior to the encounter? As was mentioned before, there is no reason for tigers to have wings.
Also, radiation will kill a lot of animals, and might even kill humans, but it will actually stimulate life as well. Radiation stimulates mutation, and that is essential for the evolutionary cycle to restart and begin a new era of life.
I was not aware Chernobyl produced new non-low-level species that survived and gave offspring. Link?
The argument that you bring about how you can throw something at a species, and it will fall apart is not true. It is VERY hard to make a species extinct and usually takes many years, usually because you need more than one thing to kill it. Take for example a virus.
Well, all you're saying is that some species are more resilient than others. But when I look at a virus the reason it's so durable is because it can adapt in the short time frames not possible for complex species. That's why I say low level stuff is easily generatable.
And with the transitional fossils, I hope you realize that your statement contradicts everything I know about logic. You are saying that there was an ancestor of the human being. And then it died off. But then another animal that looked like kind of like it appeared, then died. Then the next animal came, and died off again. And it went on until we reach humans. Does this make any sense at all?
I don't remember saying there was an ancestor of the human being. o.O
I don't see anything illogical here, though. Creating-destroying is as mundane as it gets.
Why would they evolve prior to the encounter? As was mentioned before, there is no reason for tigers to have wings.
They wouldn't, but those that had the mutations for the wings would have a greater chance of survival then those that didn't, and considering speed is the name of the game and not flight, wings would be an evolutionary death sentence, thus they wouldn't evolve that way.
I was not aware Chernobyl produced new non-low-level species that survived and gave offspring. Link?
Low levels of radiation (And I mean vastly low levels) do help to stimulate evolution. Chernobyl is no such place. (And you do realize that, when you were in the sun today, you were getting a nice does of radiation, right?)
Yeap. So if I don't reply to somebody (don, for instance, we already had the discussion a few times anyway, and you sound angry, which is kinda scary), it's because there's way too many people and just one of me
Lol, I know that feeling. Trying to read through all this is quite hard on the eyes. o.O (I'm reading as I reply, in the black type on white background)
Faulty analogy is faulty. Just because carrier rush works among noobs in StarCraft doesn't mean it works on higher levels.
Alright, in starcraft terms, this is like believing in minerals but not high yield minerals, acting as though the high yield minerals in your natural expansion don't exist and running off to another expansion thats less defensible just because it has regular minerals. Or something like that. Hell, I'm no good at comparing evolution to Starcraft. Lol.
Specifically the time required for macro evolution is what makes me think it's between impossible and highly improbable.
But you admit that it's possible and probable to have micro evolution. So if you have a microevolution, then another microevolution, then another microevolution, etc, etc, etc, over the course of time, all these microevolutions would be what we call macroevolution. It isn't like that pokeman game where it just happens, it is small happenings over a long period of time. (Did I spell microevoultion right? It's underlined in red...)
I'm sorry. Lizards will give birth to less less lizards, who will somehow get better mates, and give birth to less lizards, who also somehow get better mates, who give birth to non-lizards, to less less birds, to less birds, and finally, birds. Or something like that.[/qoute]
That is not what I am saying either. Lizards can develop wings, and lizards can fly, if they need to, but you will never have a lizard just turn into a bird.
Small scale: variations within an order or maybe family or w/e they call those (like, finches).
Large scale: variations between... the bigger parts.
There's a missing link between the two. I have this breed of cat. I don't ever expect them to become a dog. They can become the most ridiculous variations of cats or even cat family but they won't become dogs. And that's what evolution claims happens.
No, your cats will not become dogs, but they can split off from the cat species and form another species, similar to how some wolves split off from the wolf species and became dogs.
Sounds like all half-life based dating to me, except the luminescense thing. Makes me wonder, why date with so many different methods? Granted, I'm not an expert, but from what I know half life dating relies on stuff like how many of element X existed at time Y in area Z. And that's a lot of variables.
From the "we were created" stand point, still simulatable.
Well, multiple methods of dating allow scientists to compare and contrast different findings and help to figure out which one is correct. Granted, I am no scientist either, but that is my educated guess. As for half-lifes, the reason why lead-lead radiometric dating is good is because of the stability of the daughter isotopes used in the dating.
Quote from name="Equinox" post=549560" »
And what other theories are there as to the diversity of life and how things got to the point they are now?
Creation, obviously, you know what my position is.
Evolution makes more sense to you, that's fine.
Creation makes more sense to me.
Yet you (evolutionists) always have a problem with me. It's like you're outraged someone dares to think different from you without being Christian at the same time lol.
I mean this whole discussion just started with me saying "I don't believe in X" and now i have 4 people trying to prove to me I'm an idiot. Which I find very interesting, and indicative.
You know you messed that quote up, right?
No, but honestly though, I just haven't found any credible information to use to explain creationism. If there was some sort of scientific discovery or something then I would be completely ready to listen, but as it stands, 99% of creationists use the Bible and other such things to defend their view. If you have more concrete information to defend creationism, I would be more then willing to listen. (Or read, as the case may be.)
I believe both are faith-based, and are not mutually exclusive in segments. Why the polarization?
Well, if you want to get technical, everything is faith-based. You have faith that when you press a button on the keyboard the character will show up on the screen. You have faith that when you flip the light switch, the lights will come on. You have faith that when you turn the key in your car, your car will come on.
But that is besides the point.
(And I know in that much text, I misspelled some stuff, so I apologize ahead of time. )
believe both are faith-based, and are not mutually exclusive in segments. Why the polarization?
I don't mean it to be polarizing, I'm thinking of the 7 day story and many of the interpretations, that just seems implausible to me. I can partly bite on the 7 phase belief vs. the stricter camp that 7 days means 7 days. But even if I were to accept the relaxed 7 phase thought, it still seems implausible to me. 2000 years ago I would say that was probably the best explanation one could hope for but not with what we know today.
Actually Equinox, I'm glad you brought this up. I don't you think you realize how many species are extinct because they were not equipped enough to survive changes to the environment.
99%, wasn't it?
Even if the number is 99% (which it's not), the amount of species that have lived on the planet over its vast history is thousands of thousands (millions, and I mean tens of millions, a ridiculous number of species). The percentage of how much life survived environmental changes has NOTHING to do with this argument. It could be 1% or 10 x 10^-99. It doesn't matter.
It happens A LOT! You are actually disproving your own argument, since the ones that evolved enough that can cope with these changes survive environmental changes can survive.
Why would they evolve prior to the encounter? As was mentioned before, there is no reason for tigers to have wings.
It's called mutation. The reason why tigers don't have wings is because they are neither built to support themselves in the air, and their genes are not yet able to produce wings. Evolution can works in small stages. The easiest example of this is that you have a species of short-necked animals. All of sudden, a genetic mutation occurs that one of them has a longer neck. No biggy, life goes on. However, there is all of sudden a drought, and the bushes on the ground dry out, and only higher branches on the trees survive. So the short-necked animals die out, and the long-necked animal survives. This is called natural selection. Of course, this example is assuming that the rest of the evolutionary process happens relatively fast, even though macro-evolution takes a very long time to happen. So we are leaving that part out of the example.
Yet this example has demonstrated natural selection, a very key part of the evolutionary process. Evolution does not work that you keep going under water enough times until you get gills. It literally is a bunch of mutations, happening randomly, and some of them end up being more productive than others. Natural selection really is evolution.
Also, radiation will kill a lot of animals, and might even kill humans, but it will actually stimulate life as well. Radiation stimulates mutation, and that is essential for the evolutionary cycle to restart and begin a new era of life.
I was not aware Chernobyl produced new non-low-level species that survived and gave offspring. Link?
Um.. okay. I don't think you quite understand how radiation works. You can compare it to a stimulative drug. Take enough of it, and you'll be good. Take too much, you'll go crazy. Yet even in the cases of Chernobyl, you can see mutations everywhere, even happening to humans. If you want to see, just google "Chernobyl mutations". Radiation stimulates mutation, which is a key step of evolution, like I just said. It can destroy life, but enough of it and it can help stimulate life to evolve.
The argument that you bring about how you can throw something at a species, and it will fall apart is not true. It is VERY hard to make a species extinct and usually takes many years, usually because you need more than one thing to kill it. Take for example a virus.
Well, all you're saying is that some species are more resilient than others. But when I look at a virus the reason it's so durable is because it can adapt in the short time frames not possible for complex species. That's why I say low level stuff is easily generatable.
Yet what is high stuff made of? Smaller stuff. Bacteria is one of the most durable things in nature, due to the fact that it has literally been evolving for the entire span of life on Earth. A virus is not even alive, it is simply a bubble with DNA. You cannot make the comparison that a virus is small, so therefor evolution is not possible. It would be like saying that a millimeter is small, therefor you cannot measure distances between your house and the mall.
And with the transitional fossils, I hope you realize that your statement contradicts everything I know about logic. You are saying that there was an ancestor of the human being. And then it died off. But then another animal that looked like kind of like it appeared, then died. Then the next animal came, and died off again. And it went on until we reach humans. Does this make any sense at all?
I don't remember saying there was an ancestor of the human being. o.O
I don't see anything illogical here, though. Creating-destroying is as mundane as it gets.
You said that the transitional fossils only show species existing, so my logic says that for in order for that to be true, let's just say that humans never evolved and that they were always here. There would have to be humanoids walking around, then dying off, then another one appearing that looks even closer to a human, then it dies off. Does this make sense to any logical mind?
Listen, using atomic isotopes to date the Earth is not that complicated if you think about it. It's simple half-life put backwards. And even if this method was evil, destructive, and not true, then we have other sources of dating the Earth, one of them is using geology with the layers of the Earth (there is a word for this, but I am too tired to look into google). Another is using star comparisons in the universe. And the list goes on. Scientists are not stupid, they know all about the area around them and take everything into account before they make the statement that the Earth is "x" years old. The same with evolution
They wouldn't, but those that had the mutations for the wings would have a greater chance of survival then those that didn't, and considering speed is the name of the game and not flight, wings would be an evolutionary death sentence, thus they wouldn't evolve that way.
Evolution happens on larger scales than that, so it wouldn't really be a death sentence because by the time it happens the world would change 300 times and the tigers would just die.
Replacement seems much more viable to me than adaptation. Time after time, you had the specific exact mutations you need to survive, for every change of environment that happened? You need to evolve very quickly. Tigers do not evolve quickly. Which is why they don't have wings.
Low levels of radiation (And I mean vastly low levels) do help to stimulate evolution. Chernobyl is no such place. (And you do realize that, when you were in the sun today, you were getting a nice does of radiation, right?)
I'm pretty sure that around Chernobyl there's plenty of space for low levels of radiation.
And if my offspring mutated, or if I mutated, that would be a very bad thing. But last time I checked, at most the sun causes cancer. Which is kinda bad.
The thing you get from the Sun is Vitamin D, which can be acquired despite blocking sun's radiation.
I'm still confused on the whole "positive radiation" thing, I've yet to encounter ANY radiation being good for people. Sun rays are bad, even mild ones, tanning is generally not a good thing; the thing they use in tanning saloons is VERY bad; Chernobyl radiation is BAD, and there's a limit to how much you can get exposed to; X-ray is bad; other stuff is generally neutral or is bad in only huge quantities.
These things cause instant, PRESENT bad side effects. The problem with radiation is it causes imperfection. There are some examples of imperfect adaptation in life but from what I know they're actually pretty rare and they still cause issues. Generally, a mutated population is not well adapted, because it's imperfect, because it's partially broken, it's working incorrectly in multiple areas. With mutation, you don't nicely transition from a fat lizard to a light bird. You get a bunch of lizards with weird body parts with dysfunctional digestive or breathing or whatever systems and while they can somewhat survive they're hardly fit.
The majority of current animal species functions pretty well. Like, tigers. They have nothing extra. They have everything they need, in perfect combination. No more, no less. Mutation is not like that. Mass mutation is when you get something you may absolutely not need, or you get something you need WITH something you don't need, and you get kind of a mess.
So if you have a microevolution, then another microevolution, then another microevolution, etc, etc, etc, over the course of time, all these microevolutions would be what we call macroevolution.
Except I do not believe microevolution is capable of giving tigers wings. Which is where the issue is.
No, your cats will not become dogs, but they can split off from the cat species and form another species, similar to how some wolves split off from the wolf species and became dogs.
Wolves and dogs are pretty similar.
Cats and dogs are not. Lizards and birds are not. That's what I'm getting at.
No, but honestly though, I just haven't found any credible information to use to explain creationism.
Creation theory explains itself. You have no boundaries with it. But, I do believe a person needs to be a creator, or observe creation, to understand creation theory, because I think that whole principle is the same across the... realities. But this thread is not really for discussing creation theory so I don't.
To each his own. Macroevolution makes little sense to me. Creation does. I believe evolution is helpful in many ways, so I do not really oppose, but I do oppose those who believe it's the answer to life, the universe, and everything, especially those among them who are not evolutionists, because, trust me, I could tell you a lot of absolutely untrue crap about computers that would sound plausible...
Well, if you want to get technical, everything is faith-based. You have faith that when you press a button on the keyboard the character will show up on the screen. You have faith that when you flip the light switch, the lights will come on. You have faith that when you turn the key in your car, your car will come on.
I love how you people pretend you know everything. As I said before, there could have been nothing prior to us, just as prior to 2003, WoW did not exist, but Thrall begs to differ.
Worlds can exist in multiple states.
It's called mutation. The reason why tigers don't have wings is because they are neither built to support themselves in the air, and their genes are not yet able to produce wings.
Nor are crocodiles.
Mutation is random. Hence, tigers having wings is not that far fetched with evolution. See my reply to LinkX's post above, randomized mutation does not lead to a best possible result, specifically because it is random and cannot analyze what the best result is.
Evolution does not work that you keep going under water enough times until you get gills. It literally is a bunch of mutations, happening randomly, and some of them end up being more productive than others. Natural selection really is evolution.
Random rare mutations will not produce a new species. One winged tiger will not be able to make the rest of them winged...
Um.. okay. I don't think you quite understand how radiation works. You can compare it to a stimulative drug. Take enough of it, and you'll be good.
I do not believe such a thing as a "good" dose of radiation exists. There's a limit, after which you will be damaged, but I have never heard of these positive effects you speak of.
Take too much, you'll go crazy. Yet even in the cases of Chernobyl, you can see mutations everywhere, even happening to humans.
I didn't say anything about mutations. I said I do not recall any new species.
Anyone significantly hit by radiation became unfit to live.
That's generally what happens in case of mutations, as well.
Mutations are BAD.
Mutations are RARE.
Mutations are not compatible with the rest of the species.
Some crazy random event of super low probability? Maybe it can happen. But not that much, not that often, not sufficient to explain the diversity of species.
Yet what is high stuff made of? Smaller stuff. Bacteria is one of the most durable things in nature, due to the fact that it has literally been evolving for the entire span of life on Earth. A virus is not even alive, it is simply a bubble with DNA. You cannot make the comparison that a virus is small, so therefor evolution is not possible. It would be like saying that a millimeter is small, therefor you cannot measure distances between your house and the mall.
We're not discussing the alivity of viruses here.
Again you're extrapolating and saying it's true.
I did not say small. I said it was low-level. Low-level does not function the same as high-level, even IF high-level is composed of it, high-level functions differently.
Newton said momentum is mass times speed. And a few other stuff involving those two.
At the low level, at our low speeds, it totally works.
At the high level, at high speeds, it totally doesn't.
At low level, the shortest distance between two points is a line. For us, it works.
At high level, the shortest distance between two points may be a curve.
For something as huge, old, and bizarre as evolution, for me to expect that macro is true just because micro is true would just be silly. It's extrapolation, and the reason you do not extrapolate is because you are missing variables/special conditions that can occur on the macro level.
If you don't understand that, I don't know how you can call yourself scientific.
You said that the transitional fossils only show species existing, so my logic says that for in order for that to be true, let's just say that humans never evolved and that they were always here. There would have to be humanoids walking around, then dying off, then another one appearing that looks even closer to a human, then it dies off. Does this make sense to any logical mind?
I just said, destruction-creation is as mundane as it gets.
Humanoid walking around, died/wiped, make a new one, better version. It's what you do with cars. Yes, it makes TONS of sense to me.
Listen, using atomic isotopes to date the Earth is not that complicated if you think about it. It's simple half-life put backwards.
And half-life put backwards requires you to know how much there was to begin with. Depending on where you get that data from, you may even get conclusive results.
Another is using star comparisons in the universe.
Because we know so much about the universe without ever leaving our solar system. :rolleyes: You're giving more credit than there is. You're overestimating how precise and accurate our knowledge is. Half of various astrophysics theories are based on the UNPROVEN idea that the maximum speed is the speed of light. I am not in any way opposed to the development of various theories but I do realize we can be extremely wrong in our very definition of the fabric of the world.
When you discuss such things as Earth age you really need to get away from the mere practical axiom-proven science, because it's bigger than that, and it's bigger than us, and anything we can imagine to know.
We live in the bubble of more or less knowing why things happen the way they do. We have actions and consequences. But we really don't know why everything works exactly the way it does. What we believed changed over time. We used to think objects naturally stop over time with movement. Then friction and gravity came about, but we have no idea why masses attract each other, they just do.
We know absolutely nothing about the concept and behavior of time, besides the idea that stuff slows down for things at high speeds.
You simply do not appreciate how much we actually do not know... everything we do, we live for, is based on the simple FAITH, that everything around is is real, and is what it seems. To say with absolute certainity that earth is X billion years old... you're being arrogant.
Scientists are not stupid, they know all about the area around them and take everything into account before they make the statement that the Earth is "x" years old. The same with evolution
Scientists can be very stupid, actually. Especially when they're biased. And most scientists hate religion, and function in opposition to it.
The creation idea is almost never examined scientifically, which should tell you that there's a war, an argument, and when that happens, both sides completely ignore each other.
Not everyone is Einstein, and he believed in a God.
I don't mean it to be polarizing, I'm thinking of the 7 day story and many of the interpretations, that just seems implausible to me. I can partly bite on the 7 phase belief vs. the stricter camp that 7 days means 7 days. But even if I were to accept the relaxed 7 phase thought, it still seems implausible to me. 2000 years ago I would say that was probably the best explanation one could hope for but not with what we know today.
Creation theory (blank creation theory) has nothing to do with any 7 fucking pahses.
Creation theory is this: this earth was at least partially created manually. The rest, you add your own stuff, like I did.
The end. This has nothing, NOTHING to do with the Bible.
Creation theory (blank creation theory) has nothing to do with any 7 fucking pahses.
Creation theory is this: this earth was at least partially created manually. The rest, you add your own stuff, like I did.
The end. This has nothing, NOTHING to do with the Bible.
Yes, that was the point I was making and the Bibles version of creation seems implausible to me vs. evolutionary theory. IMO
Err...WoW is based off the real world more or less... Why wouldn't it have the same homologous features that exist in real life? Homologous different colored dragons exist in the real world?
I didn't mean...oh fuck it, everybody misread what I said there.
Evolution happens on larger scales than that, so it wouldn't really be a death sentence because by the time it happens the world would change 300 times and the tigers would just die.
Replacement seems much more viable to me than adaptation. Time after time, you had the specific exact mutations you need to survive, for every change of environment that happened? You need to evolve very quickly. Tigers do not evolve quickly. Which is why they don't have wings.
Ahh, no, tigers do not have wings because they haven't been put into a situation in which wings would be an asset. You do not just randomly evolve wings just because you want wings. That isn't how it works. And yes, if X mutation has a higher survivability rate then the base then the X mutation will either branch off from the species or will become the base of the species.
I'm pretty sure that around Chernobyl there's plenty of space for low levels of radiation.
And if my offspring mutated, or if I mutated, that would be a very bad thing. But last time I checked, at most the sun causes cancer. Which is kinda bad.
The thing you get from the Sun is Vitamin D, which can be acquired despite blocking sun's radiation.
I'm still confused on the whole "positive radiation" thing, I've yet to encounter ANY radiation being good for people. Sun rays are bad, even mild ones, tanning is generally not a good thing; the thing they use in tanning saloons is VERY bad; Chernobyl radiation is BAD, and there's a limit to how much you can get exposed to; X-ray is bad; other stuff is generally neutral or is bad in only huge quantities.
These things cause instant, PRESENT bad side effects. The problem with radiation is it causes imperfection. There are some examples of imperfect adaptation in life but from what I know they're actually pretty rare and they still cause issues. Generally, a mutated population is not well adapted, because it's imperfect, because it's partially broken, it's working incorrectly in multiple areas. With mutation, you don't nicely transition from a fat lizard to a light bird. You get a bunch of lizards with weird body parts with dysfunctional digestive or breathing or whatever systems and while they can somewhat survive they're hardly fit.
Minor mutations are what causes evolution. Think about this for a moment, you have ancient horses, about a foot tall, x number of them have a mutation that makes them taller, which helps them survive better, that mutation is going to have a better chance of being carried over to the next generation, and the next generation, etc. The mutation that gives them a fifth leg is going to die out because it doesn't help them as a species. So yes, you are right, it isn't pretty and it isn't perfect like the pictures seem to indicate, there is a lot of death and whatnot, but it works.
The majority of current animal species functions pretty well. Like, tigers. They have nothing extra. They have everything they need, in perfect combination. No more, no less. Mutation is not like that. Mass mutation is when you get something you may absolutely not need, or you get something you need WITH something you don't need, and you get kind of a mess.
Something you don't need? Like the Homosapian's tonsils?
Except I do not believe microevolution is capable of giving tigers wings. Which is where the issue is.
Alright, microevolution can give, say, a little bit longer legs, then another microevolution can give a little bit longer legs then that, etc, etc, then after a few dozen microevolutions you no longer have what you started with, but a new species. Do you understand?
Wolves and dogs are pretty similar.
Cats and dogs are not. Lizards and birds are not. That's what I'm getting at.
Chimps and humans are similar too, even if humans are not similar to crocodiles. So therefore, sense humans are not similar to crocs we could not of evolved from chimps. Is that your argument?
Creation theory explains itself. You have no boundaries with it. But, I do believe a person needs to be a creator, or observe creation, to understand creation theory, because I think that whole principle is the same across the... realities. But this thread is not really for discussing creation theory so I don't.
To each his own. Macroevolution makes little sense to me. Creation does. I believe evolution is helpful in many ways, so I do not really oppose, but I do oppose those who believe it's the answer to life, the universe, and everything, especially those among them who are not evolutionists, because, trust me, I could tell you a lot of absolutely untrue crap about computers that would sound plausible...
Well let me be the first to say that I am not an evolutionist, and if I say something that is untrue, please, somebody tell me.
As for creation, I honestly do not understand it. It is your scientific belief that some guy just poofed the world into existence?
Because faith has nothing to do with any of it. I mean, if you want to talk like that, how are you sure that when you press a key on the keyboard that the specified character will come up?
At the low level, at our low speeds, it totally works.
At the high level, at high speeds, it totally doesn't.
Yea, and we have found that F=ma is not the correct equation, it is a basic equation and helped us move forward, but it is not exactly the correct equation. Einstein, if I am not mistaken, figured that out. (Granted, I am mistaken a lot so... Lol.
I just said, destruction-creation is as mundane as it gets. Humanoid walking around, died/wiped, make a new one, better version. It's what you do with cars. Yes, it makes TONS of sense to me.
You simply do not appreciate how much we actually do not know... everything we do, we live for, is based on the simple FAITH, that everything around is is real, and is what it seems. To say with absolute certainity that earth is X billion years old... you're being arrogant.
Actually, we are constantly revising our views as new information becomes available. That's the difference, science is constantly updating, constantly growing, creation is a stagnant belief that is shrinking as more evidence is found that shows other ways.
Scientists can be very stupid, actually. Especially when they're biased. And most scientists hate religion, and function in opposition to it.
The creation idea is almost never examined scientifically, which should tell you that there's a war, an argument, and when that happens, both sides completely ignore each other.
Not everyone is Einstein, and he believed in a God.
If you have a name of a scientist that is actively trying to promote his/her agenda and not advance the knowledge of man kind, please give us the name. Scientists are ruined for just a single biased paper being published, they take these things very seriously. The reason creation theory/creationism/intelligent design/whatever isn't taken seriously is because there has yet to be any proof of such things aside from 2000 year old books written bronze age desert men. (No offense to anybody who believes in the two thousand year old book that was written by bronze age desert men, or the other books of similar origin.)
(And I apologize, some of those were not direct replies to me, I just couldn't help myself!)
Alright, there is a reason why religion is not recognized in the scientific realm. It's because it doesn't answer anything. In science, we have things called "unknowns", which function the part of science in which we do not have an answer for. However, using a supernatural does not replace the unknown, in fact, it just creates another unknown, and religious people deny that unknown's existence. However Equinox, I am not arguing you any further because I will just repeat myself. You have been shown right in front of your face the proof of evolution, and yet you have continued to reject it with all your heart.
In fact, you are actually insulting science itself, calling scientists stupid, which I find rather disturbing. I hope you realize that science has tripled the normal life expectancy, fed you, kept you clean, kept you warm, and let you argue against science itself. We are now in the age of reason, which can leave religion out of the picture in scientific terms. Religion had its chance in history, and it failed, miserably. Not only that, it left a gaping hole in our technological upbringing during the Roman times. The age of Christianity had the entire technology of the Romans at their hands, and found a way to destroy itself and the rest of the world (I know this is not the real way the Dark Ages started, but you can still make that argument).
What religion tries to do is to take every single scientific unknown and say that "God" did it, which not only is it ridiculous, it slows down the entire scientific progress of mankind. I am willing to sit a couple more years, even if it's passed my lifetime, to find out the answers to our own universe. Maintaining an argument that you don't see Hulks and Tigers with wings is not a valid argument, because I can say the argument that evolution actually sees us as hulks and tigers with wings, seeing how resistant a predator is nowadays, and how poisonous sea creatures can be, or how ferocious a shark can be, and how we are so smart.
So believe what you want, but don't insult science along the way, because that is such a low blow in my opinion that it's almost a wonder why it's not tabooed like insulting religion.
Replacement seems much more viable to me than adaptation. Time after time, you had the specific exact mutations you need to survive, for every change of environment that happened? You need to evolve very quickly. Tigers do not evolve quickly. Which is why they don't have wings.
Of course not, shit dies all the time. Every time you cut down a patch of trees in the Amazonas you kill like five bugs that only lived there and weren't adapted to exist anywhere else in the world. Like literally, the couldn't have survived a hundred meters away in another tree.
That's the whole point. Nature tries to kill as much as it can, and whatever remains is obviously the creatures who had the exact right genes and traits to actually survive. That's why it looks like most things always have just the right things to survive, it's because that is actually the case.
And what happens when drastic changes happen? Well, most likely a lot more stuff dies. After the Permian era, A LOT of stuff died. 70% on land and around 90% in the water I think. For some reason though, the remaining animals did have what it took to survive.
The majority of current animal species functions pretty well. Like, tigers. They have nothing extra. They have everything they need, in perfect combination. No more, no less. Mutation is not like that. Mass mutation is when you get something you may absolutely not need, or you get something you need WITH something you don't need, and you get kind of a mess.
Indeed. That's probably why people, despite living a long time nowadays, also get all kinds of diseases and body failures when they're old. Whatever adaptions we went through in the past was all focused on surviving in the early years. Whatever happened after 60+ didn't matter, because no one got that old anyway, and when they did, they certainly didn't get no offspring to carry on whatever genes gave them benefits at that time. So any of that hasn't been affected by evolution. Some humans might have had good genes for later in life, some bad. But there was no way for natural selection to sort out the good from the bad.
Well, if you want to get technical, everything is faith-based. You have faith that when you press a button on the keyboard the character will show up on the screen. You have faith that when you flip the light switch, the lights will come on. You have faith that when you turn the key in your car, your car will come on.
Exactly. So how can you be sure?
(Looks like a double quote there).
Because it's entirely reasonable for me to assume that when I press the A key on the keyboard, an a will in fact show up on screen. It always works, and when it doesn't, replacing the keyboard probably will probably work. I've yet to see it fail.
In fact, I've yet to see anything as such fail to work in life. While I can agree with you philosophically speaking that we cannot really know, I've yet found no reason to apply that to everyday life. A convenient ignoring of possibilities you could say. And when the alternative explanation, evolution, makes a lot of sense to me, I figure it's probably right. And if it's not, I'm pretty sure were at least partly right.
Mutation is random. Hence, tigers having wings is not that far fetched with evolution. See my reply to LinkX's post above, randomized mutation does not lead to a best possible result, specifically because it is random and cannot analyze what the best result is.
I'd actually guess it is pretty hard. First of all, a tiger cannot fly by it's own force given it's current body structure or weight. A tiger weighs like 600 pounds, while a large quetzalcoatlus probably weighed something like 180. And that wing span was 10 meters!
Any tiger who had any tendency to develop wings would probably never get there, and that holds true for a lot of possible mutations for a lot of species. At one point, one fish had to get legs. But no fish today will ever get legs again, because they'd instantly die to all the developed animals on land that already have legs.
Random rare mutations will not produce a new species. One winged tiger will not be able to make the rest of them winged...
Hypothetically speaking it would probably be something like one tiger getting lighter bones. That could lead them to break bones easier and die more, but if it doesn't, that gene would be carried over to the next generation.
Now of course a tiger will never get wings, because it's just not physically possible for them to fly. But the chances would be gradual, and by the time they had wings, there would be a whole lot more than just one of them with it.
Creation theory. Not creationism. Did I use the word creationism somewhere? I did not intend to.
My apologies, I just don't see the difference... Like I say, explain it to me and I might be able to better understand.
Equinox just means that ANYTHING could have create us however it saw fit, without using evolution. That does not in any way have anything to do with the Bible or any other religion.
just as prior to 2003, WoW did not exist, but Thrall begs to differ.
Completely off topic, but you know Thrall is leaving the Horde in Cataclysm, right? x.x
Equinox means that, if you asked Thrall "when was the world created", he'd say some 60,000 years ago when the titans came to Azeroth. If you tell him that it was in fact created some 20 years ago by a dude in California, that wouldn't make any sense to him, but it'd still be true.
If you have a name of a scientist that is actively trying to promote his/her agenda and not advance the knowledge of man kind, please give us the name. Scientists are ruined for just a single biased paper being published, they take these things very seriously.
Athletes are also ruined when they take steroids. And yet still some do it.
In fact, you are actually insulting science itself, calling scientists stupid, which I find rather disturbing. I hope you realize that science has tripled the normal life expectancy, fed you, kept you clean, kept you warm, and let you argue against science itself.
Which has nothing to do with Equinox's objections to evolution.
We are now in the age of reason, which can leave religion out of the picture in scientific terms. Religion had its chance in history, and it failed, miserably. Not only that, it left a gaping hole in our technological upbringing during the Roman times.
She is also not claiming that any of this has anything to do with religion. For all we know, aliens could be watching us and creating new species.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think you can evolve little things. Cat breeds, beaks. And bacteria can do whatever the heck it wants. That's about it. If there was something to drive tigers to fly or have immunity to radiation, do you know what would happen?
They would die out.
If I have my biology correct. We aren't here because of our inteligence, which does have a small part in why we did survive. We are here because everybody had sex, lots and lots of sexy sex, and rubbers didn't exist way back when.
And quoted from the South Park episode Do the Handicapped go to Hell?:
"It's a man's obligation to stick his boneration in a woman's separation. This sort of penetration will increase the population of the younger generation."
macroevo doesnt have to be so dramatic. it could be as simple as a snails shell colour changing to avoid being eaten.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Yet even if you believe in any type of evolution, you are self-contradicting when you say that you don't believe in grand scale evolution because the only difference is time scale. You are forgetting that the Earth is 5 billion years, and life had a lot of time to evolve. Ignoring all the transitional fossils we have found, you can "say" that we haven't seen any evolution take place. Well great! Fantastic! Dependable observations has only been around for only so long. Can you really throw away an entire theory in which we have so much proof for because the dependable observations of 3000 years supposedly did not find something evolving into a flying radiation immune T-Rex?
Also you throw in why humans don't have 6 arms, 9 feet tall, have wings, and breathe fire? Well, I believe you don't understand how evolution works. Evolution only works to better suit the specimen to suit their current environment. This is why we don't see giraffes in North America, or penguins in the Sahara. The only time you can see "super" species are the dinosaurs, and that created one of the golden ages of the life on Earth. Yet when mammals evolved, why didn't they evolve into terminators? Because evolution among prey are usually to hide and stay low, since it creates the highest rate of survival. And when that happens, which predator is usually the most dominant? The one that can stay quiet, and let the prey move out and so it can sneak up on it. A popular hypothesis is that the primary source of food among dinosaurs was other dinosaurs, and not mammals, because that dinosaur prey was larger and easier to access.
Evolution only suits to help animals deal with their environments. It's not a factory that creates a the best animal, it simply helps it compete with other animals or deal with their natural environment.
On a more serious note, I do not know much about this topic as it never interested me. However, what I hear from people is that while there is some pretty strong evidence for it, there is not a vast amount, and a lot of it is disproved. In order for me to believe something, it has to be pretty damn well proven.
If you are too slow to run from a predator, you will die. You will not give birth to offspring that will run faster because you have died before you were able to do that.
Most changes are tied to very minor things such as competition within the species itself (who gets better fruit). How that would make you fly or develop eyesight is beyond me.
You say there's no reason for tigers to fly: my point exactly.
Evolution/adaptation seems to require extremely specific conditions to work. Not too bad, not too good, just right, with a bunch of conditions, which makes it sound more like an engineered thing than a random process. Maybe it's possible, maybe it's not, I'm not supposed to just blindly believe in it just because the idea is there, and so far I felt it was a stretch more than anything.
The kind of macroevolution I'm skeptical of is the lizards turning into birds, development of eyes, and the whole "humans evolved from some low level organism" idea.
Which would mean everyone on the entire earth who has ever owned a breed of a cat or a dog believes in macroevolution.
I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that.
Time scales are pretty important.
Extrapolation is not considered a very viable statistical technique. Induction requires specific conditions which we don't have here. So, no, it's not paradoxical at all, just because it works on a small scale doesn't mean on large scale special conditions which we're not aware of do not apply (e.g., we need to assume we have the 100% knowledge of the function of all processes in the universe. We don't. We know so little it's not funny).
Small scale we can see. Large scale we can't. Large scale is all hoping guesses are correct, the fossil record is not that horrible, and that nothing weird happened in the process.
We don't know how old Earth actually is. I'm forgetting unprovable things people like to claim. It can be 500b years, it can be 1 million years.
Unfortunately, fossils do not in any way prove that evolution took place. At most, they prove that some animal existed.
I'll put the theory on the shelf and record it on my list of possible theories. What I am not going to do, is throw away EVERY other theory in existence (which is essentially what every evolution fan does), including those that make a lot more sense to me.
I think you took my flying radiation tiger joke too far.
taking your lizard to bird flight example, there could have been many reasons for a lizard to modify its scales into feathers, for mating, getting food, escaping predators, blending in, etc. we see so many homologous features in the structures that its almost humourous to think that the creator of the universe would make some things so complex, but yet maintain a basic body plan for animals.
as for the development of eyes, we see the exact opposite of this evolutionary path when we study animals that live in caves; they all have small vestigial eyes and some have completely lost eyes altogether. yet these are closely related species to other animals with full use of eyes.
i think that its a near-miraculous that everything is where it is, the probabilities of some of these events happening is very small, but yet here we are.
ps. why are all those quotes from me lol.
edit: and i hate to bring it up, because i know u hate bacteria, but mycobacter have lost whole chunks of genes used for synthesis and reproduction because theyve been too reliant on their hosts metabolic machinery.
and what other theories? evolution is by far the most well researched and agreed upon theory for speciation. it also makes a lot of sense too me.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Also, radiation will kill a lot of animals, and might even kill humans, but it will actually stimulate life as well. Radiation stimulates mutation, and that is essential for the evolutionary cycle to restart and begin a new era of life.
The argument that you bring about how you can throw something at a species, and it will fall apart is not true. It is VERY hard to make a species extinct and usually takes many years, usually because you need more than one thing to kill it. Take for example a virus. No matter how devastating and incurable a virus is, genetics will prove that some animals with in a species will be immune to that virus (this has shown with the AIDS virus in humans). You will need multiple things to throw at a species to make it extinct, and that's what usually happens, usually coming in the form of lack of food and another source.
And with the transitional fossils, I hope you realize that your statement contradicts everything I know about logic. You are saying that there was an ancestor of the human being. And then it died off. But then another animal that looked like kind of like it appeared, then died. Then the next animal came, and died off again. And it went on until we reach humans. Does this make any sense at all?
http://berkeley.edu/...11_idaltu.shtml
I think there is much we don't know yet, personally I find evolution more fascinating than faith based explanations.
This is akin to saying you believe in an inch, but not a foot, or a foot, but not a yard.
So, yes, you can believe in an inch and not a foot, or a foot and not a yard, but your believe in the inch or the foot simply points out that you subconsciously believe in the foot or the yard respectively.
Given enough time, they would develop wings, and would no longer be tigers, but another species. You are not taking into consideration the sheer lengths of time required for macro evolution.
Lol, smartass.
They are not fragile. The only reason people think they are fragile is because humanity is careless and wreckless. Are humans fragile simply because we can die from a nuke? Of course not, so ignore humanity for a moment and species are not fragile.
Lizards don't turn into birds. Lizards can evolve wings with enough time, but they will never turn into birds.
Exactly. Small time scale=microevolution (The stuff you believe in.) Big time scale=lots of microevolutions=macroevolution (The stuff you claim to not believe in.)
Thats pretty neat!
Come again?
I think people overestimate how complex everything is. To the creator, it probably as complex as WoW is to us.
99%, wasn't it?
Why would they evolve prior to the encounter? As was mentioned before, there is no reason for tigers to have wings.
I was not aware Chernobyl produced new non-low-level species that survived and gave offspring. Link?
Well, all you're saying is that some species are more resilient than others. But when I look at a virus the reason it's so durable is because it can adapt in the short time frames not possible for complex species. That's why I say low level stuff is easily generatable.
I don't remember saying there was an ancestor of the human being. o.O
I don't see anything illogical here, though. Creating-destroying is as mundane as it gets.
I believe both are faith-based, and are not mutually exclusive in segments. Why the polarization?
Err...WoW is based off the real world more or less... Why wouldn't it have the same homologous features that exist in real life?
They wouldn't, but those that had the mutations for the wings would have a greater chance of survival then those that didn't, and considering speed is the name of the game and not flight, wings would be an evolutionary death sentence, thus they wouldn't evolve that way.
Low levels of radiation (And I mean vastly low levels) do help to stimulate evolution. Chernobyl is no such place. (And you do realize that, when you were in the sun today, you were getting a nice does of radiation, right?)
Lol, I know that feeling. Trying to read through all this is quite hard on the eyes. o.O (I'm reading as I reply, in the black type on white background)
Alright, in starcraft terms, this is like believing in minerals but not high yield minerals, acting as though the high yield minerals in your natural expansion don't exist and running off to another expansion thats less defensible just because it has regular minerals. Or something like that. Hell, I'm no good at comparing evolution to Starcraft. Lol.
But you admit that it's possible and probable to have micro evolution. So if you have a microevolution, then another microevolution, then another microevolution, etc, etc, etc, over the course of time, all these microevolutions would be what we call macroevolution. It isn't like that pokeman game where it just happens, it is small happenings over a long period of time. (Did I spell microevoultion right? It's underlined in red...)
I meant how Humans affect other species. >.>;
You know you messed that quote up, right?
No, but honestly though, I just haven't found any credible information to use to explain creationism. If there was some sort of scientific discovery or something then I would be completely ready to listen, but as it stands, 99% of creationists use the Bible and other such things to defend their view. If you have more concrete information to defend creationism, I would be more then willing to listen. (Or read, as the case may be.)
Well, if you want to get technical, everything is faith-based. You have faith that when you press a button on the keyboard the character will show up on the screen. You have faith that when you flip the light switch, the lights will come on. You have faith that when you turn the key in your car, your car will come on.
But that is besides the point.
(And I know in that much text, I misspelled some stuff, so I apologize ahead of time. )
I don't mean it to be polarizing, I'm thinking of the 7 day story and many of the interpretations, that just seems implausible to me. I can partly bite on the 7 phase belief vs. the stricter camp that 7 days means 7 days. But even if I were to accept the relaxed 7 phase thought, it still seems implausible to me. 2000 years ago I would say that was probably the best explanation one could hope for but not with what we know today.
Even if the number is 99% (which it's not), the amount of species that have lived on the planet over its vast history is thousands of thousands (millions, and I mean tens of millions, a ridiculous number of species). The percentage of how much life survived environmental changes has NOTHING to do with this argument. It could be 1% or 10 x 10^-99. It doesn't matter.
It's called mutation. The reason why tigers don't have wings is because they are neither built to support themselves in the air, and their genes are not yet able to produce wings. Evolution can works in small stages. The easiest example of this is that you have a species of short-necked animals. All of sudden, a genetic mutation occurs that one of them has a longer neck. No biggy, life goes on. However, there is all of sudden a drought, and the bushes on the ground dry out, and only higher branches on the trees survive. So the short-necked animals die out, and the long-necked animal survives. This is called natural selection. Of course, this example is assuming that the rest of the evolutionary process happens relatively fast, even though macro-evolution takes a very long time to happen. So we are leaving that part out of the example.
Yet this example has demonstrated natural selection, a very key part of the evolutionary process. Evolution does not work that you keep going under water enough times until you get gills. It literally is a bunch of mutations, happening randomly, and some of them end up being more productive than others. Natural selection really is evolution.
Um.. okay. I don't think you quite understand how radiation works. You can compare it to a stimulative drug. Take enough of it, and you'll be good. Take too much, you'll go crazy. Yet even in the cases of Chernobyl, you can see mutations everywhere, even happening to humans. If you want to see, just google "Chernobyl mutations". Radiation stimulates mutation, which is a key step of evolution, like I just said. It can destroy life, but enough of it and it can help stimulate life to evolve.
Yet what is high stuff made of? Smaller stuff. Bacteria is one of the most durable things in nature, due to the fact that it has literally been evolving for the entire span of life on Earth. A virus is not even alive, it is simply a bubble with DNA. You cannot make the comparison that a virus is small, so therefor evolution is not possible. It would be like saying that a millimeter is small, therefor you cannot measure distances between your house and the mall.
You said that the transitional fossils only show species existing, so my logic says that for in order for that to be true, let's just say that humans never evolved and that they were always here. There would have to be humanoids walking around, then dying off, then another one appearing that looks even closer to a human, then it dies off. Does this make sense to any logical mind?
Listen, using atomic isotopes to date the Earth is not that complicated if you think about it. It's simple half-life put backwards. And even if this method was evil, destructive, and not true, then we have other sources of dating the Earth, one of them is using geology with the layers of the Earth (there is a word for this, but I am too tired to look into google). Another is using star comparisons in the universe. And the list goes on. Scientists are not stupid, they know all about the area around them and take everything into account before they make the statement that the Earth is "x" years old. The same with evolution
Evolution happens on larger scales than that, so it wouldn't really be a death sentence because by the time it happens the world would change 300 times and the tigers would just die.
Replacement seems much more viable to me than adaptation. Time after time, you had the specific exact mutations you need to survive, for every change of environment that happened? You need to evolve very quickly. Tigers do not evolve quickly. Which is why they don't have wings.
I'm pretty sure that around Chernobyl there's plenty of space for low levels of radiation.
And if my offspring mutated, or if I mutated, that would be a very bad thing. But last time I checked, at most the sun causes cancer. Which is kinda bad.
The thing you get from the Sun is Vitamin D, which can be acquired despite blocking sun's radiation.
I'm still confused on the whole "positive radiation" thing, I've yet to encounter ANY radiation being good for people. Sun rays are bad, even mild ones, tanning is generally not a good thing; the thing they use in tanning saloons is VERY bad; Chernobyl radiation is BAD, and there's a limit to how much you can get exposed to; X-ray is bad; other stuff is generally neutral or is bad in only huge quantities.
These things cause instant, PRESENT bad side effects. The problem with radiation is it causes imperfection. There are some examples of imperfect adaptation in life but from what I know they're actually pretty rare and they still cause issues. Generally, a mutated population is not well adapted, because it's imperfect, because it's partially broken, it's working incorrectly in multiple areas. With mutation, you don't nicely transition from a fat lizard to a light bird. You get a bunch of lizards with weird body parts with dysfunctional digestive or breathing or whatever systems and while they can somewhat survive they're hardly fit.
The majority of current animal species functions pretty well. Like, tigers. They have nothing extra. They have everything they need, in perfect combination. No more, no less. Mutation is not like that. Mass mutation is when you get something you may absolutely not need, or you get something you need WITH something you don't need, and you get kind of a mess.
Except I do not believe microevolution is capable of giving tigers wings. Which is where the issue is.
Wolves and dogs are pretty similar.
Cats and dogs are not. Lizards and birds are not. That's what I'm getting at.
Creation theory explains itself. You have no boundaries with it. But, I do believe a person needs to be a creator, or observe creation, to understand creation theory, because I think that whole principle is the same across the... realities. But this thread is not really for discussing creation theory so I don't.
To each his own. Macroevolution makes little sense to me. Creation does. I believe evolution is helpful in many ways, so I do not really oppose, but I do oppose those who believe it's the answer to life, the universe, and everything, especially those among them who are not evolutionists, because, trust me, I could tell you a lot of absolutely untrue crap about computers that would sound plausible...
Creation theory. Not creationism. Did I use the word creationism somewhere? I did not intend to.
Exactly. So how can you be sure?
I love how you people pretend you know everything. As I said before, there could have been nothing prior to us, just as prior to 2003, WoW did not exist, but Thrall begs to differ.
Worlds can exist in multiple states.
Nor are crocodiles.
Mutation is random. Hence, tigers having wings is not that far fetched with evolution. See my reply to LinkX's post above, randomized mutation does not lead to a best possible result, specifically because it is random and cannot analyze what the best result is.
Random rare mutations will not produce a new species. One winged tiger will not be able to make the rest of them winged...
I do not believe such a thing as a "good" dose of radiation exists. There's a limit, after which you will be damaged, but I have never heard of these positive effects you speak of.
I didn't say anything about mutations. I said I do not recall any new species.
Anyone significantly hit by radiation became unfit to live.
That's generally what happens in case of mutations, as well.
Mutations are BAD.
Mutations are RARE.
Mutations are not compatible with the rest of the species.
Some crazy random event of super low probability? Maybe it can happen. But not that much, not that often, not sufficient to explain the diversity of species.
We're not discussing the alivity of viruses here.
Again you're extrapolating and saying it's true.
I did not say small. I said it was low-level. Low-level does not function the same as high-level, even IF high-level is composed of it, high-level functions differently.
Newton said momentum is mass times speed. And a few other stuff involving those two.
At the low level, at our low speeds, it totally works.
At the high level, at high speeds, it totally doesn't.
At low level, the shortest distance between two points is a line. For us, it works.
At high level, the shortest distance between two points may be a curve.
For something as huge, old, and bizarre as evolution, for me to expect that macro is true just because micro is true would just be silly. It's extrapolation, and the reason you do not extrapolate is because you are missing variables/special conditions that can occur on the macro level.
If you don't understand that, I don't know how you can call yourself scientific.
I just said, destruction-creation is as mundane as it gets.
Humanoid walking around, died/wiped, make a new one, better version. It's what you do with cars. Yes, it makes TONS of sense to me.
And half-life put backwards requires you to know how much there was to begin with. Depending on where you get that data from, you may even get conclusive results.
Because we know so much about the universe without ever leaving our solar system. :rolleyes: You're giving more credit than there is. You're overestimating how precise and accurate our knowledge is. Half of various astrophysics theories are based on the UNPROVEN idea that the maximum speed is the speed of light. I am not in any way opposed to the development of various theories but I do realize we can be extremely wrong in our very definition of the fabric of the world.
When you discuss such things as Earth age you really need to get away from the mere practical axiom-proven science, because it's bigger than that, and it's bigger than us, and anything we can imagine to know.
We live in the bubble of more or less knowing why things happen the way they do. We have actions and consequences. But we really don't know why everything works exactly the way it does. What we believed changed over time. We used to think objects naturally stop over time with movement. Then friction and gravity came about, but we have no idea why masses attract each other, they just do.
We know absolutely nothing about the concept and behavior of time, besides the idea that stuff slows down for things at high speeds.
You simply do not appreciate how much we actually do not know... everything we do, we live for, is based on the simple FAITH, that everything around is is real, and is what it seems. To say with absolute certainity that earth is X billion years old... you're being arrogant.
Scientists can be very stupid, actually. Especially when they're biased. And most scientists hate religion, and function in opposition to it.
The creation idea is almost never examined scientifically, which should tell you that there's a war, an argument, and when that happens, both sides completely ignore each other.
Not everyone is Einstein, and he believed in a God.
Creation theory (blank creation theory) has nothing to do with any 7 fucking pahses.
Creation theory is this: this earth was at least partially created manually. The rest, you add your own stuff, like I did.
The end. This has nothing, NOTHING to do with the Bible.
Yes, that was the point I was making and the Bibles version of creation seems implausible to me vs. evolutionary theory. IMO
I didn't mean...oh fuck it, everybody misread what I said there.
Ahh, no, tigers do not have wings because they haven't been put into a situation in which wings would be an asset. You do not just randomly evolve wings just because you want wings. That isn't how it works. And yes, if X mutation has a higher survivability rate then the base then the X mutation will either branch off from the species or will become the base of the species.
Minor mutations are what causes evolution. Think about this for a moment, you have ancient horses, about a foot tall, x number of them have a mutation that makes them taller, which helps them survive better, that mutation is going to have a better chance of being carried over to the next generation, and the next generation, etc. The mutation that gives them a fifth leg is going to die out because it doesn't help them as a species. So yes, you are right, it isn't pretty and it isn't perfect like the pictures seem to indicate, there is a lot of death and whatnot, but it works.
Something you don't need? Like the Homosapian's tonsils?
Alright, microevolution can give, say, a little bit longer legs, then another microevolution can give a little bit longer legs then that, etc, etc, then after a few dozen microevolutions you no longer have what you started with, but a new species. Do you understand?
Chimps and humans are similar too, even if humans are not similar to crocodiles. So therefore, sense humans are not similar to crocs we could not of evolved from chimps. Is that your argument?
Well let me be the first to say that I am not an evolutionist, and if I say something that is untrue, please, somebody tell me.
As for creation, I honestly do not understand it. It is your scientific belief that some guy just poofed the world into existence?
My apologies, I just don't see the difference... Like I say, explain it to me and I might be able to better understand.
Because faith has nothing to do with any of it. I mean, if you want to talk like that, how are you sure that when you press a key on the keyboard that the specified character will come up?
Completely off topic, but you know Thrall is leaving the Horde in Cataclysm, right? x.x
Natural Selection is not Random! >.< Hate when people talk like that. :wallbash:
Yea, and we have found that F=ma is not the correct equation, it is a basic equation and helped us move forward, but it is not exactly the correct equation. Einstein, if I am not mistaken, figured that out. (Granted, I am mistaken a lot so... Lol.
o.O Seriously?
Actually, we are constantly revising our views as new information becomes available. That's the difference, science is constantly updating, constantly growing, creation is a stagnant belief that is shrinking as more evidence is found that shows other ways.
If you have a name of a scientist that is actively trying to promote his/her agenda and not advance the knowledge of man kind, please give us the name. Scientists are ruined for just a single biased paper being published, they take these things very seriously. The reason creation theory/creationism/intelligent design/whatever isn't taken seriously is because there has yet to be any proof of such things aside from 2000 year old books written bronze age desert men. (No offense to anybody who believes in the two thousand year old book that was written by bronze age desert men, or the other books of similar origin.)
(And I apologize, some of those were not direct replies to me, I just couldn't help myself!)
In fact, you are actually insulting science itself, calling scientists stupid, which I find rather disturbing. I hope you realize that science has tripled the normal life expectancy, fed you, kept you clean, kept you warm, and let you argue against science itself. We are now in the age of reason, which can leave religion out of the picture in scientific terms. Religion had its chance in history, and it failed, miserably. Not only that, it left a gaping hole in our technological upbringing during the Roman times. The age of Christianity had the entire technology of the Romans at their hands, and found a way to destroy itself and the rest of the world (I know this is not the real way the Dark Ages started, but you can still make that argument).
What religion tries to do is to take every single scientific unknown and say that "God" did it, which not only is it ridiculous, it slows down the entire scientific progress of mankind. I am willing to sit a couple more years, even if it's passed my lifetime, to find out the answers to our own universe. Maintaining an argument that you don't see Hulks and Tigers with wings is not a valid argument, because I can say the argument that evolution actually sees us as hulks and tigers with wings, seeing how resistant a predator is nowadays, and how poisonous sea creatures can be, or how ferocious a shark can be, and how we are so smart.
So believe what you want, but don't insult science along the way, because that is such a low blow in my opinion that it's almost a wonder why it's not tabooed like insulting religion.
That's the whole point. Nature tries to kill as much as it can, and whatever remains is obviously the creatures who had the exact right genes and traits to actually survive. That's why it looks like most things always have just the right things to survive, it's because that is actually the case.
And what happens when drastic changes happen? Well, most likely a lot more stuff dies. After the Permian era, A LOT of stuff died. 70% on land and around 90% in the water I think. For some reason though, the remaining animals did have what it took to survive.
Indeed. That's probably why people, despite living a long time nowadays, also get all kinds of diseases and body failures when they're old. Whatever adaptions we went through in the past was all focused on surviving in the early years. Whatever happened after 60+ didn't matter, because no one got that old anyway, and when they did, they certainly didn't get no offspring to carry on whatever genes gave them benefits at that time. So any of that hasn't been affected by evolution. Some humans might have had good genes for later in life, some bad. But there was no way for natural selection to sort out the good from the bad.
(Looks like a double quote there).
Because it's entirely reasonable for me to assume that when I press the A key on the keyboard, an a will in fact show up on screen. It always works, and when it doesn't, replacing the keyboard probably will probably work. I've yet to see it fail.
In fact, I've yet to see anything as such fail to work in life. While I can agree with you philosophically speaking that we cannot really know, I've yet found no reason to apply that to everyday life. A convenient ignoring of possibilities you could say. And when the alternative explanation, evolution, makes a lot of sense to me, I figure it's probably right. And if it's not, I'm pretty sure were at least partly right.
I'd actually guess it is pretty hard. First of all, a tiger cannot fly by it's own force given it's current body structure or weight. A tiger weighs like 600 pounds, while a large quetzalcoatlus probably weighed something like 180. And that wing span was 10 meters!
Any tiger who had any tendency to develop wings would probably never get there, and that holds true for a lot of possible mutations for a lot of species. At one point, one fish had to get legs. But no fish today will ever get legs again, because they'd instantly die to all the developed animals on land that already have legs.
Hypothetically speaking it would probably be something like one tiger getting lighter bones. That could lead them to break bones easier and die more, but if it doesn't, that gene would be carried over to the next generation.
Now of course a tiger will never get wings, because it's just not physically possible for them to fly. But the chances would be gradual, and by the time they had wings, there would be a whole lot more than just one of them with it.
No. Tigers do not have wings because they cannot fly ever. It would be impossible for them to support flight in their current form.
We should really use another example here rather than tigers and wings.
Equinox just means that ANYTHING could have create us however it saw fit, without using evolution. That does not in any way have anything to do with the Bible or any other religion.
Equinox means that, if you asked Thrall "when was the world created", he'd say some 60,000 years ago when the titans came to Azeroth. If you tell him that it was in fact created some 20 years ago by a dude in California, that wouldn't make any sense to him, but it'd still be true.
Athletes are also ruined when they take steroids. And yet still some do it.
Scientists likewise are only human.
As is common, what has really happened is that you've all argued from different standpoint. You could go on forever and we'd never reach anywhere.
Which has nothing to do with Equinox's objections to evolution.
She is also not claiming that any of this has anything to do with religion. For all we know, aliens could be watching us and creating new species.