Faith ?

[Nasty-Fire]

In my case, it is! Four college exams in a row tomo-damn-fucking-row. I'll tell you what you want to know later on.

 

[Resonator]

Nice edit. I, too, will tell you what you want to know later on

 

[HemeHaci]

For once in my life, I will agree with cuntface. Your posts are, as always, consisted of complete non-sense and blind beliefs and an obviously boundless imagination. Don't believe that cuntface is missing ideas to reply to you, it's probably only because he doesn't know where to start, because like me, he maybe never saw such non-sense before in his life.



1) Though I couldn't precisely answer your questiong, I think you must consider the fact that all these things are done progressively; no animals decide that they want to change their ovules and such; it's a naturally hidden transformation because it happens on a very large period based on the very general condition of said species. If a pond begins to dry up, it's possible that some species within it will one day be able to live outside of it. But this pond must dry very damn slowly and the evolution begins only when the species are affected by the change. Every species just adapt themselves.

2) I guess these species where pretty much alike the one they derivated from; There had to be many extincted species that are just derivation of others, but I don't know if there are evidences about it.

Non-sense? I am out of words now, really.

You couldnt even understand the question obviously! Your first answer is already included in my question, lets say that body adapts but why would ovules and sperms adapt too? They are not affected in a similar way. Remember the test about cutting rats' tail for gerenations but new rats would always come with tail because fertilization cells were not affected, if by chance the cells are affected by some kind of radiation deep in the pond or lighting hitting fish's ass how the hell would it lead to developing a lung? You clearly dont have any answer to that.

How the fuck is a reptile like a human? The stupid so called transition species (I clearly remember one, an amphibian reptile-fish thingy, made those guys rejoice which thought to be the form between sea and earth) was found to be still living in some areas of Africa

 

[applestuddel]

You are correct Resonator, for you are the chosen one. You alone in the universe have been chosen by the esoteric forces of energy, what the lesser beings call God. You are the balance of all things ignorant and with your supreme capacity for knowledge, you become the beacon of reason.

Believe in yourself, for there is no such thing as subjective experience. Everything you learned thus far in your life remain the unequivocal truth. Your mind alone remain uncorrupted of humanly biases that inevitably follow existance, because your perspective is not limited. At all.

The only one out of 6.6 billion people to realize the blatantly factual 7 form model of thought. Keep your sanity intact and resist the trappings of proof and evidence. Remember, you are the only unbiased person in existence. Every conclusion from your supreme intellect is the truth, because you know it - you, the chosen one. It’s not belief when you are certain it is the fact. When the time comes to accept yourself as your savior, your spirit will be released of your earthly shell and your consciousness will merge with rainbows.

 

[applestuddel]

Hey your ego just called, he told me to post that.

 

[HemeHaci]

^^That made me laugh

 

[de_aztec]

Non-sense? I am out of words now, really.

You couldnt even understand the question obviously! Your first answer is already included in my question, lets say that body adapts but why would ovules and sperms adapt too? They are not affected in a similar way. Remember the test about cutting rats' tail for gerenations but new rats would always come with tail because fertilization cells were not affected, if by chance the cells are affected by some kind of radiation deep in the pond or lighting hitting fish's ass how the hell would it lead to developing a lung? You clearly dont have any answer to that.

How the fuck is a reptile like a human? The stupid so called transition species (I clearly remember one, an amphibian reptile-fish thingy, made those guys rejoice which thought to be the form between sea and earth) was found to be still living in some areas of Africa

ur totally right and science is wrong

evolution is a lie

 

[hexwind]

Hahahahah that's one of the most retarded things I've ever seen. Dont you even know what atheism is?

Frankly only ignorant morons belive in a god that is in the popular religions. The only kind of god you can make a case for is a deist god. But that's still a shitty case.

Could you explain what atheism is Mr all-knowing?

 

[de_aztec]

theism is belief in a god

atheism (with the pretext 'a') is the disbelief in a god. the prefix a means absent or no

thus:

no belief in a god

 

[fizz6207]

You couldnt even understand the question obviously! Your first answer is already included in my question, lets say that body adapts but why would ovules and sperms adapt too?
How the fuck is a reptile like a human? The stupid so called transition species (I clearly remember one, an amphibian reptile-fish thingy, made those guys rejoice which thought to be the form between sea and earth) was found to be still living in some areas of Africa

If youre implying that for evolution to work that the ovules and sperm need to adapt you have no clue what youre talking about.

How is a reptile like a human? Um, it has a skeleton, lungs, eats through its mouth, shits through its ass, likes to have sex to procreate, beats blood around its body using its heart and breathes with its lungs, in fact the list of things we dont have in common is probably gonna be much shorter.

As for fossil evidence of the genetic freaks who didnt work out, for a start, if a mutation occured that wasnt beneficial chances are that individual would have never developed beyond a zygote, died in the womb or died shortly after birth, or if it was still ok it prolly had dud gonads and couldnt bang bitches. And if some sort of mutation was to favour an individual that it passed on its trait to many future generations, the chance of being fossilised is much higher. Remember that the chance of a fossil occuring in the first place is a very low one (so the fact that we do have as many transition fossils as we do is nothing short of astounding). So what are you more likely to find a fossil of, one genetic freak who never made it or the fossil of an organism that propagated successfully for thousands or maybe millions of years? Its pretty obvious really.

 

[Katatonic89]

Non-sense? I am out of words now, really.

You couldnt even understand the question obviously! Your first answer is already included in my question, lets say that body adapts but why would ovules and sperms adapt too? They are not affected in a similar way. Remember the test about cutting rats' tail for gerenations but new rats would always come with tail because fertilization cells were not affected, if by chance the cells are affected by some kind of radiation deep in the pond or lighting hitting fish's ass how the hell would it lead to developing a lung? You clearly dont have any answer to that.

How the fuck is a reptile like a human? The stupid so called transition species (I clearly remember one, an amphibian reptile-fish thingy, made those guys rejoice which thought to be the form between sea and earth) was found to be still living in some areas of Africa

Your understanding of evolution is wrong. The example with the rats was so fucking stupid it's embarrassing.
Here is an example of an evoluiton we can see today:

Hedgehogs that rolls up to balls when they get scared is on the way to get killed off, because the get fucked when they roll up into a ball infront of a car or a hungry animal. So the ones who dont roll upp into a ball lives on.

It's so fucking simple to understand.

Edit: I ment hedgehogs not porcupines.

 

[Reelo]

1) According to evolution a fish living in a pond, once the pond begins to dry up, decides to improve lungs in order to survive! Then it becomes an amphibian and lives via lung and gill respiration. Until now this is fine, but in order to develop a generation of these amphibian creatures the change should also be in sperms and ovules.. Which means the amphibian creature should say that "Now I should also improve my fertilization cells also, so that my kids and grandchildren can live a comfortable life and/or survive." Do you think this is logical? I don't think scientists have decided where evolution starts, in fertilization cells or body cells, because if it was the other way around then the conditions that the body is suffering wouldn't effect evolution in fertilization cells then it would be random which contradicts Darwin in the first place..

2) In order to be evolution between genetically alike two creatures there should be millions of meaningful, beneficial and non-fatal mutations. Lets say that these chain of millions of mutations happened in thousand years, but what happened to the guys in between who are ab-normal, those who dont have what it takes to survive (due to lack of "evolution") and defective creatures? Where are the fossiles?

Please answer.

Easy. Your questions show that you don't quite understand how evolution works. It's not about goals or necessity. Let me go through your question one by one.


1)Wrong. It would die out. A pond drying up is far too fast anyway. What happened at the transition from marin to terrestrial life is that certain fish, due to random mutation (remember: No aim, no goal) were able to endure short periods of time outside the water. They didn't grow lungs right away or anything. It was an infinitely small difference from their other specimen.
Now, if (and that's an important point for evolution to kick in) this littel tiny difference opened up a small niche for said individuals, like beig able to find new food in places others couldn't go, then they had what is called "fitness" meaning they had an advantage over others of their species. Not the game-breaking advantage, but still. This means that they were able to transmit their new faculty to their offspring (genetics, remember? Cutting tails from rats proves nothing because it doesn't alter genes. Mutation does)

Improved fitness in a species always results in the new characteristic being transmitted to more and more offspring, but it happens very very very slowly. But it does.
The amphibian creature doesn't "say this or that" to itself. And genetic mutation, it doesn't matter where it starts, in the creature or in an ovule. Once a creature displays a small difference, it's bound to be in its genes, which include sperm and ovocytes because they have the very same genes the creature has. The mutation is bound to end up in the offspring eventually.

Your statement that randomness contradicts Darwin is completely false. Randomness is the main factor of evolution, man!

2) Thousands of years? more like 10.000s of years or even 100.000s of years. And where are the fossils? Well, considering the fact that we have so comparatively few fossils even from the millions of species that lived for looooong periods of times, it's not surprising that finding fossils of creatures that developped non-beneficial mutations (which means reduced fitness, which means less or no offspring, which means far less individuals displaying that mutation) should be nearly impossible.

Look, if hominids began developping around 7 mill. years ago, and you take all hominid fossils we got, they are just about a few hundreds, for the assumed several million individuals of hominid and human individuals that must have lived during those 7 million years, do you think we'd be able to find fossils of some species that, due to non-beneficial mutation only survived for two-hundred years or so? Unlikely. Possible, yes, but unlikely.

To sum up the Theory of Evolution (and in a scientifically context, a theory is far diffferent from the expression "hey, I got a theory...")

-Mutation is random. It's small (almost unnoticeably small) and completely random. No aim, no goal, no because-this-I-need to-do-that
-If mutation offers an advantage over non-mutated specimen, then in the long run, more offspring is bound to inherit the mutation, because the ones that display the mutation, due to the advantage it offers, have more opportunities to create offspring
-If mutation offers no advantage, or even a disadvantage, then less offspring will inherit it, and the mutation will vanish in short time.
-After a looooong time (we're talking hundreds of generations) the mutation will be a stable and defining factor of a new (sub-)species.

It's really very easy, once you understand some basic principles of natural laws...

 

[HemeHaci]

1)Wrong. It would die out. A pond drying up is far too fast anyway. What happened at the transition from marin to terrestrial life is that certain fish, due to random mutation (remember: No aim, no goal) were able to endure short periods of time outside the water. They didn't grow lungs right away or anything. It was an infinitely small difference from their other specimen.
Now, if (and that's an important point for evolution to kick in) this littel tiny difference opened up a small niche for said individuals, like beig able to find new food in places others couldn't go, then they had what is called "fitness" meaning they had an advantage over others of their species. Not the game-breaking advantage, but still. This means that they were able to transmit their new faculty to their offspring (genetics, remember? Cutting tails from rats proves nothing because it doesn't alter genes. Mutation does)

Randomness that you put was not the same with mine, what I said was more like "for example you do like to go on surface due to lake being dried out(ok i takes a loong time) in order to survive you should develop beneficial mutations, not a random mutation like having a fifth arm. So the pattern here is the mutations towards more successful creatures, which is not random in a sense.

About the fish example you give: Lets say that some certain fish did indeed live a little longer than his mates, found other places with food. Why would his fertilization cells would change? His kid would be exactly the same way he was, and even if he managed to go after his father path then his kid (original father grand kid) would be exactly the same way he is, back to the start. Definitely there should be some leaps in the evolution line, like certain types of radioactive materials interacting with creatures or excessive types of electromagnetic (I am not sure if this can do it either) zones to initiate mutation, which brings a new dimension to the subject.

To pu it in another way, also what happens to you by the surroundings definitely does not find its way into genes, how can you come up with that? Adapting to surroundings is NOT mutation so it is not possible to find its way into genes. Its like a guitarist's fingers would toughen because of pushing metal strings but this does not find its way into his kids because it is environmental, likewise even if this happened for thousands of centuries it would not find its way into kids. Every child would get his fingers toughen once they start playing guitar. And what evolution says is that these improvements in certain living creatures is due to conditions in THE ENVIRONMENT. There is a certain gap here.

You could claim the other way, in which mutation is starting from fertilization cells but that would be total non-sense either from a natural point of view. (though some aliens could interfere or flying spaghetti monster or Thor etc)

 

[hexwind]

theism is belief in a god

atheism (with the pretext 'a') is the disbelief in a god. the prefix a means absent or no

thus:

no belief in a god

I already know that man. But i think what he meant was that Atheism is Satanism itself. I didn't get his point tbh, although mine was clear enough wasn't it?

 

[Arasmas]

lol is hemehaci seriously arguing against evolution, good lord, i keep forgetting that there actually are idiots who still don't understand it

 

[Reelo]

About the fish example you give: Lets say that some certain fish did indeed live a little longer than his mates, found other places with food. Why would his fertilization cells would change? His kid would be exactly the same way he was, and even if he managed to go after his father path then his kid (original father grand kid) would be exactly the same way he is, back to the start. Definitely there should be some leaps in the evolution line, like certain types of radioactive materials interacting with creatures or excessive types of electromagnetic (I am not sure if this can do it either) zones to initiate mutation, which brings a new dimension to the subject.

The mutations we're talking about did and do not happen during the creature's lifetime. A creature is born mutated, due, among other reasons, to a different recombination of the genes from their parents' genes. A very natural process. Like, 2 people with black hair usually end up having kids with black hair, but they might end up with a kid with red hair (In which case it's not due to a mutation, but due to a doubling of a recessive gene present in both parents). The principles are the same. You mix the genes from 2 creatures, and 99% of the time, you get a new specimen with mixed attributes of both. But there's a small chance that something new and unexpected happens with the genes. In which case, ALL of the resulting creature's cells carry the mutation (because we're starting from a single fertilized cell wich multiplies) and this includes sperm-cells and ovules.
So, THIS creature would carry its mutation in its reproductive cells. Now, its offspring might or might not display the mutation (dependinng on if it's a dominant gene or a recessive one) but if the creature produced a lot of offspring (due to fitness) there are some who will. And those in turn will transmit the mutation because it's in the genes.

For this, you have to understand Mendel's principles of genetics, and F1, F2 genetics, as well as what a dominant and recessive gene is:

in this case, B Brown is dominant, and b white is recessive. Also, S short tail is dominant and s long tail is recessive. The figure above shows the possible results of several different generations. In this case, there's a 56,25% chance that 2nd generation offspring will be SS BB Brown with short tail, 18,75% chance that they will be either SS bb White with short tail or ss BB Brown with long tail (which is like their grandparents) and only 6, 25% chance that they will be ss bb White with long tail (meaning displaying both recessive genes)

Anyway, you need to assume that once the initial mutation (new feature, created at extraordinary event when the parents' genes were combined) is locked in the genes of one individual, it WILL end up at some point in its offspring. More offspring means bigger chance of it showing up. (Depending if its recessive or dominant)

Like, I'm white. If I had kids with a black girl, my kids would probably be more or less in-between. Now, if my kids would have children with some other person of mixed black-and-white inheritance, my grandchildren could either be white, black, or in between, in mixed proportions. If they married a white person, the kids would still be able to be white, black or in-between, only the chances for each would shift. Same with a black partner. Kids could still be white, black or mixed, in different proportions.

Evolution and genetic inheritance go hand in hand here.

You are right about radioactivity and electromagnetics, they can cause mutation. But while you will likely not grow a 3rd arm (at worst, you'll grow cancer) your genes are damaged nonetheless, and if it happens to be genes in your reproductive cells, your kids have a good chance to be born with a mutation.

 

[Antyman]

^ Mutations for the win.
keep in mind how often you can read about strange mutations in the papers, cats with one eye, snakes with two heads, kids without skin.. It's really rare with sucessfull mutations, but when they happen, and the creatures will get adapted to their surroundings, they survive.
look at the british moth-case:
the british moths were once white (just talking about one species in one area), they had nice camouflage. then the industrialism with coal kicked in, everything turned black in the area, the moths had no camo. then one moth got "mutated" and was born black, it survived and made moth-babies, all black. after a while, all the moths were black. Then the Brittons quit the coal-mining in that area, and the black moths had no camo, so they became an easy prey for moth-eating bastards. now the few white ones still existing had their time to shine. nowadays the moths in that area are white.

this was extremly unnesesary to write, but I enjoyed it.

 

[Katatonic89]

I already know that man. But i think what he meant was that Atheism is Satanism itself. I didn't get his point tbh, although mine was clear enough wasn't it?

If you knew that why did you think that satanism and atheism is the same thing? And how can you think from what I wrote that I thought satanism and atheism was the same thing?

Satanism is a religion where you belive in a god and atheism is not a religion, you dont belive in a god.

 

[hexwind]

If you knew that why did you think that satanism and atheism is the same thing? And how can you think from what I wrote that I thought satanism and atheism was the same thing?

Satanism is a religion where you belive in a god and atheism is not a religion, you dont belive in a god.

Could you read the "?" in my first post you commented?? There is two types of Satanism, Theistic Satanism (the one you mentioned, as a religion), those who believe in satan as "God" and Atheistic Satanism. That's why I was asking were is the "Satanism" thingy so people can vote for, or Nasty-Fire considered it same as a form of Atheism. Rira bien qui rira le dernier

 

[HemeHaci]

The mutations we're talking about did and do not happen during the creature's lifetime. A creature is born mutated, due, among other reasons, to a different recombination of the genes from their parents' genes. A very natural process. Like, 2 people with black hair usually end up having kids with black hair, but they might end up with a kid with red hair (In which case it's not due to a mutation, but due to a doubling of a recessive gene present in both parents). The principles are the same. You mix the genes from 2 creatures, and 99% of the time, you get a new specimen with mixed attributes of both. But there's a small chance that something new and unexpected happens with the genes. In which case, ALL of the resulting creature's cells carry the mutation (because we're starting from a single fertilized cell wich multiplies) and this includes sperm-cells and ovules.
So, THIS creature would carry its mutation in its reproductive cells. Now, its offspring might or might not display the mutation (dependinng on if it's a dominant gene or a recessive one) but if the creature produced a lot of offspring (due to fitness) there are some who will. And those in turn will transmit the mutation because it's in the genes.

For this, you have to understand Mendel's principles of genetics, and F1, F2 genetics, as well as what a dominant and recessive gene is:

in this case, B Brown is dominant, and b white is recessive. Also, S short tail is dominant and s long tail is recessive. The figure above shows the possible results of several different generations. In this case, there's a 56,25% chance that 2nd generation offspring will be SS BB Brown with short tail, 18,75% chance that they will be either SS bb White with short tail or ss BB Brown with long tail (which is like their grandparents) and only 6, 25% chance that they will be ss bb White with long tail (meaning displaying both recessive genes)

Anyway, you need to assume that once the initial mutation (new feature, created at extraordinary event when the parents' genes were combined) is locked in the genes of one individual, it WILL end up at some point in its offspring. More offspring means bigger chance of it showing up. (Depending if its recessive or dominant)

Like, I'm white. If I had kids with a black girl, my kids would probably be more or less in-between. Now, if my kids would have children with some other person of mixed black-and-white inheritance, my grandchildren could either be white, black, or in between, in mixed proportions. If they married a white person, the kids would still be able to be white, black or in-between, only the chances for each would shift. Same with a black partner. Kids could still be white, black or mixed, in different proportions.

Evolution and genetic inheritance go hand in hand here.

You are right about radioactivity and electromagnetics, they can cause mutation. But while you will likely not grow a 3rd arm (at worst, you'll grow cancer) your genes are damaged nonetheless, and if it happens to be genes in your reproductive cells, your kids have a good chance to be born with a mutation.

I wished you didn't go over high school biology for my sake, I already knew all of it although illiterate I may seem to you.

There many aspects that you are missing here, genetic variation in reproduction is already widely known which ensures the continuation of any species (i.e. this way a certain type of disease doesnt wipe out the entire community), in fact there can be trillions(if memory serves) of different type of siblings from only a couple. This being said, the variations in the reproduction does not cross certain borders which is what makes up the characteristics of the class/species i.e. your child would never ever be born with gills but it can be black brown white red etc. Certain anomilities in the siblings lead to their death/elimination. However cross production between different families/species leads to infertile individuals (like a horse and a donkey => hinny).

The mutations we're talking about did and do not happen during the creature's lifetime. A creature is born mutated, due, among other reasons, to a different recombination of the genes from their parents' genes.

This is not mutation, In biology, mutations are changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material of an organism. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division, by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation. (Dont go crazy about hypermutation yet, "Unlike many other types of mutation, SHM affects only individual immune cells, and the mutations are not transmitted to offspring.") Furthermore what you have explained is already inherent in living creatures, there is no evidence that this is due to some sort of adaptation to environment, it doesnt matter where an Aa Aa type couple is, there children can be AA Aa or aa in the cold, dry, wet or hot environment. Linking environmental adaptaion to reproduction is what we need for evolution, which is not proved (yet theory).