Evolution

[RPGMasterTurk91]

Another controversial topic brought to you by me!


Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution? Or more simply, just evolution? Why or why not?


Make it a calm and worthy debating environment.


Personally, I believe that the Theory of Evolution is a well-thought, brilliant-minded theory. Still, I don't believe that the Theory of Evolution is the end-all behind life on earth, rather, I believe in a uniquely single and infinitely powerful God that is responsible for creating everything and anything--including good, evil, and life itself.

[Ads]

[DBloke]

Evolution was a ok film and a shite cartoon series
I do believe that the film exists as I have seen countless copy's of it in charity shops

[prinplup]

i dont know much about this but i dont believe in evolution hoe come monkeys dont evolve anymore?? i believe God Exist's & THere's and afterlife & you get to meet him & you understand everything " meaning of life"

[RPGMasterTurk91]

Evolution was a ok film and a shite cartoon series
I do believe that the film exists as I have seen countless copy's of it in charity shops

Thanks a lot, I was wondering if it was real or not! I'm gonna have to go right now and get it...if I don't find it, it means you have evolved.

[Napalmbrain]

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.

[her01771]

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

[PrinceLink]

I'm going to break your arm if you post one more thread this month. I say you have like a one month ban.

I mean its just making my life that much harder to read all of these. And they all are sooo similar. They could easily be combined into one thread.

I make a motion to end this thread until discussions in the other threads halt so we don't expire all of our discussion points for the year.

[RPGMasterTurk91]

You can say "evolution" to anything you want. I say, it IS true that a butterfly "evolves" from a caterpillar to a winged butterfly.

So explain to me how the first creatures who "needed" very specific features in order to survive survived? They were still adapting to the planet. So how do birds evolve to grow longer beaks? How does genetics "know" that the bird needs a longer beak in order to survive? And apparently the original beaks were just fine because the species continued to live on to this day. Evolution claims that the original giraffes did not have long necks. How then did they survive without the proper features needed to survive? As anything evolves to protect itself from predators and consume food easier, so does everything else. The giraffe, according to the theory of evolution (which has definitely not in any way been proven, why do we have ape-like creatures from which we "evolved" from?), kept stretching its neck towards a tall tree where it needed to feed from. How did the original giraffes feed, and when they did, didn't the trees in which they fed on "evolve" to form some sort of defense? Anyways, over millions and millions of years the giraffes bred and bred until finally their necks got longer and longer. What were they feeding on for millions of years if they had been reaching for the top of a certain tree for all of those years?

Ask yourself, if someone has their arm chopped off, do they lose the ability to bear children who have two arms? Not at all, the arms won't even be deformed one bit, one would be a fool to think so. Evolution deals with every organism learning to "deal with their surroundings". If the water fowl developed clear vision in water over millions of years of "trying", how did they survive up to this day, and if they survived then, what would be the use of being able to see in water? Hows does genetics determine whether to give them this ability, and not something else "accidentally"?

There are many, many flaws in the argument of evolution--up next: "Survival of the Fittest" (this is more of a self-reminder for the next topic I want to talk about).

Alright, I can clearly see you don't know much about evolution. I think it would help if I explained the gist of it:

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.

What I wrote is actually what OTHER people say about evolution, not necessarily myself. So genetic mutations are the cause of certain traits being attributed to certain beings. Lets take the water fowl again. It has the ability to see underwater clearly, and uses it to catch fish--which is meat. The water fowl also happened to develop a digestive system which is designed to break down meat, more specifically the meat of a fish. A predator whose diet consists mainly of fish is coincidentally and "mistakenly" given the ability to see underwater? Giraffes would not survive if they did not have their long necks--nor would they resort to eating meat on the ground level--their digestive systems are not designed to break up such a thing, hence why they only eat plants and are not attracted to meat. Just look at all the different combinations of traits in nature--none of them contradict the other.

Take the antelope, for example. It has a long nose specifically designed to eat ants. What did its ancestor resort to when it hadn't accidentally grown its longer nose perfectly suited for feeding? Did they just randomly pick up an appetite for insects and "adapt" accordingly?

[RPGMasterTurk91]

I'm going to break your arm if you post one more thread this month. I say you have like a one month ban.

I mean its just making my life that much harder to read all of these. And they all are sooo similar. They could easily be combined into one thread.

I make a motion to end this thread until discussions in the other threads halt so we don't expire all of our discussion points for the year.

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

[PrinceLink]

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.