Evolution

[Shadow*91]

I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" in gravity- I accept it. Scientists resolved this debate beyond all reasonable doubt decades ago. I already talked about it in the "Does God exist?" thread, so here's a copy-paste:

As everyone knows, organisms have DNA in their bodies, and this DNA is passed on to children. Every so often however, there is a mutation (a 'mistake' in the copying process). Most mutations are harmless and don't make any noticeable difference, while a few of them are bad, and a few of them are good. A good mutation can give that organism the edge over its competitors, which makes it more likely that that particularly will survive to reproduce and pass on the mutation (for example, the giraffe with a longer neck can reach food in trees which its competitors can't reach, so it's got more food to itself). This is natural selection, or as you might call it, 'survival of the fittest' (although I don't particularly like the term- any organism which lives long enough to reproduce is basically 'fit').

So no, evolution doesn't 'know' what an organism needs to survive, nor does it 'know' anything- it's just a process. Organisms gain their features at random, and those features that aid survival are more likely to be passed on to their children.

I know how some people like to talk about the intelligent design hypothesis, saying how some features are supposedly "too complex" to have evolved (usually without any quantitative measure of 'complexity'), so I'm going to pre-empt it. Intelligent design is bad science made up by people who don't have a clue about genetics or biology. For example, let's take the old creationist favourite, the eye. It's certainly tempting to think something so complex could only have been designed, but consider this: some eyesight is better than no eyesight. The first eyes to have evolved would have been incredibly primitive, barely letting you see how bright it was. But that's still better than not being able to see at all. Over time, some organisms evolved more and more complex eyes, allowing for directional vision, better focus, colour vision, etc.

Napalm pretty much summed up the whole thread. looks like his sig is right, he does know about everything.

[Ads]

[RPGMasterTurk91]

What can I say, I like a discussion. You are not forced to read any of them, and they are INDEED different. Yes, they are linked in one way or another, but each topic will have something specific to it. And this thread will probably be my last controversial thread I will be making in a while. They are all different concepts, although you may find similarities when explaining them. Evolution, God existing, one's nationality and culture, atheism--these are all rather different but key topics of discussion and are worthy of debate. Just be glad I didn't post a "which religion are you" thread and attempt to start an ARGUMENT on who is right or wrong

Not to mention I don't see many people minding such topics, especially when a "Super Moderator" has posted and spent some of his time responding to them in a mature fashion.

Now back to the topic, contribute if you wish =D

Atheism, Evolution and the God existing threads are pretty much the same. Actually in the God existing threads there are more posts about evolution in that one than there are in this one.

I'm just asking you to let one thread go on and die before you make another one. It just is making things messy and confusing.

I know what you're saying and all, but people tend to say "let's stick to the topic of [insert topic] even when dragging on has to DO with that topic in the end. Overall, it breaks it down. Still, you can write whole BOOKS on each of these topics, so don't worry about it being messy, I think incorporating it all into one will make it all the more messy. In the end, I don't mind if one gets incorporated into the other--it's a discussion and it's bound to happen. May the "fittest thread" survive; as long as people respond to these threads, they're gonna remain...once they die, they die.

[RPGMasterTurk91]

Suppose you find a watch in the middle of a desert. What would you conclude? Would you think that someone dropped the watch? Or would you suppose that the watch came by itself?

Of course no sane person would say that the watch just happened to emerge from the sand. All the intricate working parts could not simply develop from the metals the lay buried in the earth. The watch must have a manufacturer.

If a watch tells accurate time we expect the manufacturer must be intelligent. Blind chance cannot produce a working watch.

But what else tells accurate time? Consider the sunrise and sunset. Their timings are so strictly regulated that scientists can publish in advance the sunrise and sunset times in your daily newspapers. But who regulates the timings of sunrise and sunset? If a watch can not work without an intelligent maker, how can the sun appear to rise and set with such clockwork regularity? Could this occur by itself?

Consider also that we benefit from the sun only because it remains at a safe distance from the earth, a distance that averages 93 million miles. If it got much closer the earth would burn up. And if it got too far away the earth would turn into an icy planet making human life here impossible. Who decided in advance that this was the right distance? Could it just happen by chance?

Without the sun plants would not grow. Then animals and humans would starve. Did the sun just decide to be there for us?

The rays of the sun would be dangerous for us had it not been for the protective ozone layer in our atmosphere. The atmosphere around earth keeps the harmful ultraviolet rays from reaching us. Who was it that placed this shield around us?

We need to experience sunrise. We need the sun's energy and it's light to see our way during the day. But we also need sunset. We need a break from the heat, we need the cook of night and we need the lights to out so we may sleep. Who regulated this process to provide what we need?

Moreover, if we had only the sun and the protection of the atmosphere we would want something more-beauty. Our clothes provide warmth and protection, yet we design them to also look beautiful. Knowing or need for beauty, the designer of sunrise and sunset also made the view of them to be simply breathtaking.

The creator who gave us light, energy, protection and beauty deserves our thanks. Yet some people insist that he does not exist. What would they think if they found a watch in the desert? An accurate, working watch? A beautifully designed watch? Would they not conclude that there does exist a watchmaker? An intelligent watchmaker? One who appreciates beauty? Such is God who made us, and He is exalted.

[her01771]

uh, ^i think that was a bad example.
the sceintists are just going to pop up here and give us a example....

[Napalmbrain]

Evolution and mutation are two different things.
one in africa can mutate, but one in europe can stay the same. how is that???

Like I said, it's a chance mutation of a gene when passed from parent to child. In fact, mutations happening in only environment is the key to evolution. Let's say you have a species which lived millions of years ago when Africa and Europe were still part of one continent. But eventually, they separate, which leaves some members of the species stranded apart from the others. Over time, the two populations experience different mutations- even if a mutation occurs on both sides, what's good for one population may not be good for the other (for example, you don't want lots of fur in the hot Sahara desert, but you would for a colder place like Europe). Eventually, they build up enough differences that they can now be considered two separate species.

[RPGMasterTurk91]

just because of the lack of a scientific answer does not mean a God. that's essentially what your arguement has been. if humanity cannot explain it the it's because of God. with the ants for instance, you're basically claiming that since we can't behave thier behavior, its because of God. no its not. we just haven't figured it out yet.


and now your doing the same thing you did in the "Meta is broken" thread. your offeeing up your opinions as fact despite the evidence pointing otherwise.

Well no the Meta thread is essentially opinion-based, and with that topic--majority rules is reasonable because it's deciding between two things for the people. Just because I said that your mind was closed and completely incapable of compromise doesn't mean I'm saying "mine are fact and you're wrong", I didn't think you were traumatized after I told you that. I did note that your perspective is too tight. If God really exists, then what I say is completely true. If not, then the opposite is true with me. However, I am saying that it only makes SENSE to see that God exists, that is how I view it.

The fact that we have all the technology that we have and that we have looked at ant behavior for decades and we still cannot determine what leads to their behavior isn't necessarily proof that there is God, that's not what the article is trying to prove completely. That's more of a "besides, [insert quick valid point]. It's more of a support; such tiny ants are so complex to humans who have developed so many different technologies yet we can't figure something that is seemingly so simple.

Ok, let's talk about the spider:

As one cleans his/her house, he/she might see a spider that has woven its web in a corner of the house. If he/she realizes that he/she ought to think about this creature which is normally of no importance to anyone, he/she will see new doors being opened for him/her. This tiny insect he/she sees before him/her is a miracle of design. There is perfect symmetry in the web the spider has woven. If, by any chance, he/she wonders how a tiny spider could achieve such astonishingly perfect design, and if he/she does some quick research, he/she will encounter some other extraordinary facts: the thread a spider uses is thirty percent more flexible than a rubber thread of the same thickness. The thread the spider produces is of such a superior quality that men use it as a model for the manufacture of bullet-proof vests. One must wonder how a spider is taught how to construct such complex-looking things with such precision and no faults.

[her01771]

i have some proof.
THEY HAVE FOUND NOAH'S ARK!
it was on a mountain in syria in 3 pieces.
they have proof. and guess wut? dinos still exist. they have found so much proof thus, there was no evolution. and dont say no. recently they have found a inactive volcano w/ anciet minerals. it has some animals thought to be extinct, such as the calocath. and guess wut? during the "millions" of years, the calocath has not changed.

[Napalmbrain]

i have some proof.
THEY HAVE FOUND NOAH'S ARK!
it was on a mountain in syria in 3 pieces.
they have proof. and guess wut? dinos still exist. they have found so much proof thus, there was no evolution. and dont say no. recently they have found a inactive volcano w/ anciet minerals. it has some animals thought to be extinct, such as the calocath. and guess wut? during the "millions" of years, the calocath has not changed.

The 'Noah's Ark' discovery was a hoax, and I have no idea what 'volcano' you're talking about- Coelacanths live in the Indian Ocean, and while it's true they haven't changed much in millions of years, that just means that were able to get by without needing to evolve, and it doesn't change the mountains of evidence I already mentioned.

[RPGMasterTurk91]

i have some proof.
THEY HAVE FOUND NOAH'S ARK!
it was on a mountain in syria in 3 pieces.
they have proof. and guess wut? dinos still exist. they have found so much proof thus, there was no evolution. and dont say no. recently they have found a inactive volcano w/ anciet minerals. it has some animals thought to be extinct, such as the calocath. and guess wut? during the "millions" of years, the calocath has not changed.

Actually, presently Noah's Ark is thought to be in Mount Ararat in Turkey. Look it up.

@Napalmbrain, now you're saying that the coelacanths didn't evolve much because they didn't need to? Again, this is what I mean by attributing genetics with "knowing" what to give and not to give to its species. Bees remain largely unchanged as well, but you're saying that evolution is caused due to a mutation in the genes, then adapting to the surroundings with those mutated genes. However, when you talk bout the Coelecanth, you note that it didn't "need to evolve" to get around and thus didn't. Couldn't the Mutations in the genes occur with anything--even if it doesn't seem favorable for that creature? Now you're saying only the useful, necessary things will come with evolution, yet before you questioned why "whales have leg bones that are obsolete to them". But you also noted that it is by chance what these species get, but nonetheless evolution will occur. And when it does, like with the antelope, they were either begin a craving the ant, or develop an easier way to eat the bug even though the species are alive to this day??

Let's talk about the bee:

The bactericide (bacteria-killing) property of honey is named "the inhibition effect". Experiments conducted on honey show that its bactericide properties increase twofold when diluted with water. It is very interesting to note that newly born bees in the colony are nourished with diluted honey by the bees responsible for their supervision - as if they know this feature of the honey.

When a flower has already been visited, the honeybee can understand that another bee has earlier consumed the nectar of that flower, and leave the flower immediately. This way, it saves both time and energy. Well, how does the bee understand, without checking the flower, that the nectar has earlier been consumed? This is made possible because the bees which visited the flower earlier marked it by leaving a drop on it with a special scent. Whenever a new bee looks in on the same flower, it smells the scent and understands that the flower is of no use and so goes on towards another flower. Thus, bees do not waste time on the same flower.

Honeybees are one of science's great mysteries because they have remained unchanged for 20 million years. Now that's is a big blow to the evolutionists!

[Napalmbrain]

@Napalmbrain, now you're saying that the coelacanths didn't evolve much because they didn't need to? Again, this is what I mean by attributing genetics with "knowing" what to give and not to give to its species.

I explained this already. Genes don't "know" anything. For whatever reason, coelacanths have successfully managed to survive all these years without having an environmental imperative to evolve.

Bees remain largely unchanged as well, but you're saying that evolution is caused due to a mutation in the genes, then adapting to the surroundings with those mutated genes. However, when you talk bout the Coelecanth, you note that it didn't "need to evolve" to get around and thus didn't. Couldn't the Mutations in the genes occur with anything--even if it doesn't seem favorable for that creature? Now you're saying only the useful, necessary things will come with evolution, yet before you questioned why "whales have leg bones that are obsolete to them". But you also noted that it is by chance what these species get, but nonetheless evolution will occur. And when it does, like with the antelope, they were either begin a craving the ant, or develop an easier way to eat the bug even though the species are alive to this day??

Evolution is not a perfect system. Perhaps it's better to think of it like a game of trade-offs: for example, a giraffe has a long neck to allow it to eat from tall trees, but it also means that the blood has to travel much further to get to the head. Basically, evolutionary advances often come with consequences.

Vesitigial organs, like those leg bones in the whale, are things that were once useful but no longer fulfill their primary role. The whale's ancestors lived on land, but they evolved to live at sea (unlike most of their mammal cousins such as us). As they evolved to live there, the leg bones become useless. They're not hindering the whales, they're just useless. Like I said, evolution is not perfect- it doesn't iron out these vestigial organs, and it has to work with what's already there.

Incidentally, whales are an excellent example of this- for animals that live in water it's much better than to have gills, but whales have lungs instead due to their mammalian ancestry, which means they have to keep coming up for air every few minutes. They can't just evolve gills straight away. But who knows, maybe in a few million years they will evolve gills.