Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6040
|
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not be too rash here. Simply because all modern life appeared suddenly in the Cambrian period doesn't mean there wasn't any before it. Sure, Pre-Cambrian life was limited to invertebrates and bacteria, but it was life nonetheless. Another thing I'd like to make clear is that Darwin's theory of evolution is not a creation account. It was never meant to be, and hopefully isn't heralded as such. Evolution simply explains how the species came to be. Darwin himself never meant it to become such a big debate, either. His book, "The Origins of the Species" merely outlined the very basics, such as divergent and convergent evolution and survival of the fittest. It has since been twisted into many other things. quote: No magic to it, God made it.
Perhaps you won't believe me, but that still sounds like magic. First there's nothing, and then...POOF! Everything is there. Yes, there are correlations between Genesis and what we know of the early history of Earth. But it's that little word "created" that throws me off. You just can't create something from nothing. Even the Big Bang theory (which holds the universe sprang from an infinitesimal particle of matter, meaning everything came from something) isn't that audacious. Call it a lack of faith, but I have a really, really hard time believing in the Biblical account of creationism. Yes, I don't know how the universe came about, but reason tells me not to lean on unauthenticated stories for the answer. Perhaps the Bible is completely and utterly true. Then again, perhaps it isn't. But I don't put faith in things unproven.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: January 15, 2003
Posts: 3709
|
quote: Oh, and why the total lack of response to my respose to clpo?
Probably, because he knows I can shut you up myself.
|
Registered: October 31, 2005
Posts: 105
|
quote: A cat and a dog are not that different. They are only different because your mommy and daddy told you they were.
Hahaha. A little testy, aren't we? Oh, and why the total lack of response to my respose to clpo?
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring, Renewed will be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be King
|
Registered: January 15, 2003
Posts: 3709
|
|
Registered: January 15, 2003
Posts: 3709
|
quote: 99.8% of mutations are harmful to the animal. The "it just happens" excuse is so pittiful.
Blue eyes aren't harmful, Blonde hair isn't harmful, having seven toes isn't harmful, being unusally flexible isn't harmful. Most mutations are actually neutral. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q1quote: Once upon a time,(no origin of anything, just is wasn't there and then it was, sounds like magic) some electricity zapped life into a glob of goo, and over a very long time(mathmeticians say the probability of us being humans now if we have always evolved at the current rate of evolution is improbable) that goo became a fish with no fins. Then that fish magically turned into a bigger fish with a big head. Then that fish changed into a allagator-sized salamander (that ate scorpions that had who had left the water to becaome smaller) and then the salamander grew scales, and then lost its scales and got fur and then got bigger, (or smaller, acording to evolutionists this salamander also is the origin of dogs, horses, bears, whales, elephants, walruses, mice, you name it!) and changed more and got long arms and legs, then started walking on two feet (have you seen the models of the pre-humaniod bipeds? They're all hunched over. Their backs must have been killing them! Personally, if I was a monkey, I would have started walking on four feet again!) and then invented the computer.
Absolutely not. That is your interpertation of Evolution. Evolution is far more complicated than that. This is Evolution: quote: Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:
"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.
Standard dictionaries are even worse.
"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers
"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's
These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!
Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!
Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.htmlIf you want to learn everything you could ever want to know about Evolution, go to TalkOrigins.org. They can explain it way better than I can. If you were to print all the information they have on Evolution, you'd probably end up with a 1000+ pages of quality science. quote: Evolution, like all great lies, has one grain of truth: the elephants will be less likely to have large tusks.
It is not a lie. It is a very probable theory. The problem isn't me. It's you. Like all other Creationists. You'll completely deny something regarding Evolution doesn't exist and claim ignorance when it does exist and all you have to do is look for it. Creationism is just flat out lies. quote: But know this. This has never made a new speices. It is impossible for one animal to become another kind.
Says you. A cat and a dog are not that different. They are only different because your mommy and daddy told you they were. 29 evidences for MacroevolutionIf Evolution is so wrong and Creation is right. Refute every one of these. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
|
Registered: October 31, 2005
Posts: 105
|
quote: You say evolution is hard to believe, but so is the Biblical creation account, in which everything "just wasn't there and then it was".
Wrong. Evolutionist scientists have no explanation for where the universe came from. Sure, the gas and all, but no evolutionist can tell me where the gas came from. That's the "just wasn't there and then it was" part. Its like chewing tin foil! I get alot of "The Bible is wrong" but when I say "what is the origin of the universe" everyone wants to say a gas did it. Where did the freeking gas come from!? The Bible on the other hand says quote: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
No magic to it, God made it. Now follow me close, I don't want anyone to fall off the wagon. quote: The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.
Alot of people would cry "fiction and superstition", but this is the period which scientists (including evolutionists) call the Pre-Cambrian Period. In this period there is no life. Nata. Zip. So far, the Bible supports science, and science supports the Bible. Now look at this! quote: All modern phyla were formed during the Cambrian Explosion. There was no need for any more body plans to develop.
That was clpo(the fossil record supports what he says) That statement, which is entirely true, is the death of evolution. Did you get what he said? Modern phyla/Cambrian Explosion There was no life before The Cambrian Period! Yet all Modern phla were formed then. Cambrian Explosion=Beginning of life, and Modern phylaNo new species have poped up since the beginning of life, according to the fossil record. That, my friends, is the death of evolution. Now lets see what the Bible says. quote: Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and every thing that creeps on the earth according to its kind.And God saw that it was good
(I skipped birds and fish, its about the same) So...What's the score counting 3 simple tests? EVOLUTION:0 PROVED A MOCKERY OF SCIENCE AND LOGIC BIBLE:3/3 MABEY IT SHOULD BE USED AS A HISTORY/SCIENCE BOOK. And just think, I never even had to leave the first chapter of Genesis...
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring, Renewed will be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be King
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6040
|
Dunadaine, I respect you for your opinions, but how can you not see the blinding contradiction? You say evolution is hard to believe, but so is the Biblical creation account, in which everything "just wasn't there and then it was". Sounds like magic, doesn't it? quote: Seriously though, why do put all your faith in somthing so...uncertain.
I could very well ask you the same thing. quote: This has never made a new speices. It is impossible for one animal to become another kind.
Of course. All modern phyla were formed during the Cambrian Explosion. There was no need for any more body plans to develop.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: October 31, 2005
Posts: 105
|
quote: Genes mutate. It just happens.
99.8% of mutations are harmful to the animal. The "it just happens" excuse is so pittiful. quote: Evolution IS adaptation.
Evoltion says that: Once upon a time,(no origin of anything, just is wasn't there and then it was, sounds like magic) some electricity zapped life into a glob of goo, and over a very long time(mathmeticians say the probability of us being humans now if we have always evolved at the current rate of evolution is improbable) that goo became a fish with no fins. Then that fish magically turned into a bigger fish with a big head. Then that fish changed into a allagator-sized salamander (that ate scorpions that had who had left the water to becaome smaller) and then the salamander grew scales, and then lost its scales and got fur and then got bigger, (or smaller, acording to evolutionists this salamander also is the origin of dogs, horses, bears, whales, elephants, walruses, mice, you name it!) and changed more and got long arms and legs, then started walking on two feet (have you seen the models of the pre-humaniod bipeds? They're all hunched over. Their backs must have been killing them! Personally, if I was a monkey, I would have started walking on four feet again!) and then invented the computer. Right... I wouldn't believe that if hell froze over!All in good fun though, earth!  Seriously though, why do put all your faith in somthing so...uncertain. Evolution, like all great lies, has one grain of truth: the elephants will be less likely to have large tusks. But know this. This has never made a new speices. It is impossible for one animal to become another kind.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring, Renewed will be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be King
|
Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 166
|
quote: Elephants will evolve to not have tusks in order to avoid extinction.
or of course they may go extinct
When God speaks, reason must be silent. - Martin Luther
|
Registered: January 15, 2003
Posts: 3709
|
Why are you guys so stupid? Why?.... quote: Duh... That isn't evolution. Nature, yes. Magic, no. Evolution, no.
Yes, it is nature. Of course, it's not magic. Of course it's evolution. But it is evolution on a smaller scale. quote: A better word for that would be adaptation
That is the OFFICIAL definition of EVOLUTION. Evolution IS Adaptation. quote: Are the elephants adapting? No.
Oh my god, I wanna cry. YES! They're adapting to being hunted for their tusks so they don't die out. quote: Where did they get the variation in genes in the first place?
Genes mutate. It just happens. All the time, in every species, ever. That's why some humans have genetic disorders. Random genetic mutations are what we used to make the various breeds of domestic dogs. Everyone has many different genetic anomalies, but they don't show unless the environment changes and kills off everyone without that anomaly. Elephants have tusks. Some elephants are born with genetic disorders that make their tusks too small or non-existant. Hunters come along and kill all the elephants with "perfect" tusks. The inadaquately tusked elephants continue to breed and pass on the gene. More of them are born and the speices adapts and lives on. It is a genetic change being passed on from generation to generation that allows the population to survive. That is Evolution.
|
Registered: October 31, 2005
Posts: 105
|
*sigh* quote: If all the tusked Elephants are killed, you're going to see more and more Elephants without them.
Duh... That isn't evolution. Nature, yes. Magic, no. Evolution, no. quote: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
A better word for that would be adaptationAre the elephants adapting? No. Where did they get the variation in genes in the first place?
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring, Renewed will be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be King
|
Registered: January 15, 2003
Posts: 3709
|
quote: Since when would going from full tusks to no tusks be "evolution"?
*sigh* I feel so ignored. quote: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
That is the official definition of Evolution. Read it. Read it again. Then read it twenty more times. The smaller tusk gene is a heritable change in the elephant population that is being spread over newer generations. Evolution is not a magic change from Elephant to Monkey. It is a looooong process, so we'll only see small changes like this in our lifetime. quote: And besides, not a lot of male Asian elephants have tusks to begin with.
That is a genetic anomaly. If all the tusked Elephants are killed, you're going to see more and more Elephants without them. When Humans developed a genetic anomaly that changed the way our pelvis was shaped and allowed us to stand upright on two legs, that was a small change, but it was obviously evolution. Our habitat slowly changed from rainforest to grassland, and those that couldn't stand and look over the grass to see approaching predators were killed off and so that change helped us survive, just as an Elephant losing it's tusks helps the species survive. quote: Right... The male elephants know they're being hunted for ivory, so they magicly stop growing tusks, changing they're own genes at whim or purpose.
No no no. The no-tusk/smaller-tusk gene is a recessive trait. Female elephants usually like to mate with males with larger tusks and tend to avoid males with smaller or no tusks. But, all the males with larger tusks are being killed so they have no choice but to mate with the males with smaller or no tusks. And therefore, more elephants with smaller or no tusks are being born. It's not magic, it's nature. And evolution.
|
Registered: October 31, 2005
Posts: 105
|
Right... The male elephants know they're being hunted for ivory, so they magicly stop growing tusks, changing they're own genes at whim or purpose.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring, Renewed will be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be King
|
Registered: September 29, 2004
Posts: 3690
|
I don't think it's evolution, either. It would be evolution if there same amount of elephants existed, and yet for some reason unknown (perhaps poaching, but I doubt it), their tusks become gradually smaller, and then non-existant. Evolution in its definition is changing by degrees. Since when would going from full tusks to no tusks be "evolution"? Whoever the newbie was that said it was just killing off a gene was right. If you shoot every hazel-eyed person on the planet, waited a generation, then shot the next generation with the gene, etc, you'd have no more hazel-eyed individuals. Not because our eye color evolved..you simply couldn't FIND that gene. And besides, not a lot of male Asian elephants have tusks to begin with. In Africa, both the male and female elephants ALWAYS have tusks. They have been poached just as long as Asian elephants, so why don't THEIR tusks grow smaller, or disappear? Because it isn't evolution. You can't kill off a gene that is in every single elephant in Africa, as you can in Asian elephants.
A lo hecho, pecho.
|
Registered: June 02, 2004
Posts: 8339
|
Hey, newbie: Your name sucks. Get a new one or leave altogether. Consider this your last warning.
Live and Let Live. Love and Let Love.
|
Registered: January 15, 2003
Posts: 3709
|
quote: I wouldn't really call that evolution more of killing out certain species with certain genes
Yes, it is Evolution. quote: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
|
Registered: November 11, 2005
Posts: 78
|
I wouldn't really call that evolution more of killing out certain species with certain genes only leaving a few to mate. But it is sad, and dumb that people can be that stupid to hunt for fun.
Have a great day.
|
Registered: September 21, 2005
Posts: 7
|
I don't actually know thatmuch about elephants, but it's amazing that it's coming this far. Though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, people hunt just for greed or fun all the time and I just think that's dumb.
Behind every name there is a face, love, and a story.
|
|
