Faith ?

[Reelo]

"Unlike many other types of mutation, SHM affects only individual immune cells, and the mutations are not transmitted to offspring."[/I]) 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).

Evolution does not work with the goal of adaption in mind. It's random. Whatever the reasons for a creature's modified genes are, they are random. If an advantage is created, fine. If not, too bad.

Linking environmental adaption to evolution is not necessary. Let's take the Mammoth as an example. It's ancestors, some form of elephants (even though science doesn't call em that way, but let's just do) spread across Africa and Eurasia. Let's assume they had a very light fur (well, not fur, but like young elephants today, some form of thin hair). Now, when in Eurasia the Ice Ages came, they didn't develop wool because it was cold. Changes in density of body hair are natural, some have more, some have less (like some men going bald and others not) independently of climate, just because of genetic drift (the first part of evolution). As it got colder, the ones with denser body hair (which they DIDN'T develop because it was cold, it was just a random factor) endured better, lived longer and produced more offspring. Also, some of them could digest small grass and lichen better than others. They also had an advantage. It is only logical that over time, the offspring of the better adapted (BY CHANCE) pre-mammoths outnumbered the others. And thus over time, you get some creature that has dense wool and can eat grass and lichen instead of shrubs and tree-leafs: the Mammoths. No need for breeding across-species, it all happens within a single genepool.

Take dogs for example. There are hundreds of dog races across the world, and a lot of them are VERY different. A chihuahua and a german sheperd, for example, or a terrier and an afghan. Yet they all come from the common wolf, they are interbreedeable and they can breed with wolves (genetically at least) Yet just by the look of them, you could never think that a chihuahua was related to the wolf. Here, the randomnes factor of nature has been replaced by the selective breeding of humans, but the underlying principle is exactly the same. The selective process just hasn't gone on long enough for the different breeds to not be interbreedeable anymore. But in 50.000 yeras or more, I wouldn't be surprised.

Nobody would compare an S.U.V. to a Ferrari, but they both have a common ancestor: the horse-drawn coach. At one point in time, a motor was developped which replaced horses. If it had sucked, compared to horses, it wouldn't have survived (people wouldn't have bought it) but it seemed better. Different types of motor-powered cars began to show up, and if a particular model appealed to an audience (a niche, in nature's terms) it stayed. If it sucked, nobody would buy it and production would cease. Over time, different types of cars could be recognized, each with their own set of defining characteristics, until they were as different as an SUV and a Ferrari. Evolution right there...

 

[fizz6207]

"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"


lol what? of course the environment doesnt effect which AA, Aa etc will be born, but it effects which ones are most likely to survive. Thats the very basics of natural selection you seem to be missing. If AA cant cope with the environment but aa thrives, then AA may become extinct and aa will replace it. These small changes over time are what change the gene pool and eventually may lead to new species (on an extremely basic level). Say a mutation chucks B and b in there, and B happens to work very well given a new climate. Now aa might die out in favour of Ba, but ab wont survive well and dies out. etc...

Also, evolution is understood within the scientific community as a fact. I think what many people fail to realise about science is the scrutiny any idea will undergo before it is approved by the scientific community, this isnt just some game of "oh yeah that will do for now." Any scientific idea, experiment or similar will be exposed to pretty much every scientist in the world, and every tiny little flaw picked from it. Compare this to religion, where you can make anything up to suit yourself and avoid having to have any scrutiny whatsoever (just look at scientology) Trust me, evolution didnt just rock up as something we thought sounded cool.

The 'its just a theory' argument also fails to recognise what an actual scientific theory is, its completely different from the colloquial sense.

 

[Reelo]

Also, evolution is understood within the scientific community as a fact. I think what many people fail to realise about science is the scrutiny any idea will undergo before it is approved by the scientific community, this isnt just some game of "oh yeah that will do for now." Any scientific idea, experiment or similar will be exposed to pretty much every scientist in the world, and every tiny little flaw picked from it. Compare this to religion, where you can make anything up to suit yourself and avoid having to have any scrutiny whatsoever (just look at scientology) Trust me, evolution didnt just rock up as something we thought sounded cool.

The 'its just a theory' argument also fails to recognise what an actual scientific theory is, its completely different from the colloquial sense.

Yes, Evolution is BOTH theory and fact, which is not a contradiction:

Evolution as theory and fact

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.'

"Fact" does not mean "absolute certainty". In the words of Stephen J. Gould: In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

The claim that evolution makes no meaningful predictions is not true—for example the discovery of the relationship between chromosome 2 and chimpanzee chromosomes at the end of the completion of the human and chimp genome projects was predicted, and makes meaningful sense as evidence of a common ancestor.

 

[Korlich]

The ones who are supporting evolutionism fanatically should know about it, else it would be foolish to support this scientific theory anyways. So to evolutionist people, I ask a couple of questions:

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.

1. No a fish doesn´t decide to change its organs incl. reproductive organs to live on land it happens through the need to adapt to survive (survivel of the fittest) it spans millions of yrs where incrementally the fish changes to survive.

2. There are fossils from dinosaurs, Neanderthals and countless of other creatures that perished through evelution and natural selection.

 

[de_aztec]

anyways itd be less foolish to support evolution without any knowledge about it than it would be to follow any religion simply because its science

 

[HemeHaci]

Evolution does not work with the goal of adaption in mind. It's random. Whatever the reasons for a creature's modified genes are, they are random. If an advantage is created, fine. If not, too bad.

Linking environmental adaption to evolution is not necessary. Let's take the Mammoth as an example. It's ancestors, some form of elephants (even though science doesn't call em that way, but let's just do) spread across Africa and Eurasia. Let's assume they had a very light fur (well, not fur, but like young elephants today, some form of thin hair). Now, when in Eurasia the Ice Ages came, they didn't develop wool because it was cold. Changes in density of body hair are natural, some have more, some have less (like some men going bald and others not) independently of climate, just because of genetic drift (the first part of evolution). As it got colder, the ones with denser body hair (which they DIDN'T develop because it was cold, it was just a random factor) endured better, lived longer and produced more offspring. Also, some of them could digest small grass and lichen better than others. They also had an advantage. It is only logical that over time, the offspring of the better adapted (BY CHANCE) pre-mammoths outnumbered the others. And thus over time, you get some creature that has dense wool and can eat grass and lichen instead of shrubs and tree-leafs: the Mammoths. No need for breeding across-species, it all happens within a single genepool.

Take dogs for example. There are hundreds of dog races across the world, and a lot of them are VERY different. A chihuahua and a german sheperd, for example, or a terrier and an afghan. Yet they all come from the common wolf, they are interbreedeable and they can breed with wolves (genetically at least) Yet just by the look of them, you could never think that a chihuahua was related to the wolf. Here, the randomnes factor of nature has been replaced by the selective breeding of humans, but the underlying principle is exactly the same. The selective process just hasn't gone on long enough for the different breeds to not be interbreedeable anymore. But in 50.000 yeras or more, I wouldn't be surprised.

Nobody would compare an S.U.V. to a Ferrari, but they both have a common ancestor: the horse-drawn coach. At one point in time, a motor was developped which replaced horses. If it had sucked, compared to horses, it wouldn't have survived (people wouldn't have bought it) but it seemed better. Different types of motor-powered cars began to show up, and if a particular model appealed to an audience (a niche, in nature's terms) it stayed. If it sucked, nobody would buy it and production would cease. Over time, different types of cars could be recognized, each with their own set of defining characteristics, until they were as different as an SUV and a Ferrari. Evolution right there...

So what's triggering the evolution in the first place? As you put it, this is constantly happening (haha absurdity at the maximum, varieties in living creatures does not lead to mutation nor evolution just by themselves) and environment is choosing the best suited ones and in the long run reptile becomes human. What you miss is an elephant whether it is hairy or not is an elephant, excessively long periods of time wont change it. Also dominant genes would supress recessive genes in phenotype so recessive genes' transport in time is thus guaranteed (I hope this part is clear). I am not even diving into first life form theories (but no research is satisfying there yet)..

What's crucial here is believing blindly in such a theory, which has so many holes and fallacies it is ridiculous in my eyes.

That theory and fact thing is funny too, everybody knows an apple falls down. Newton just modeled it (and funny enough it was accepted as a law which was just simplification of lorentz transformations which according to special relativity, this is only a good approximation at much smaller speeds than the speed of light, which again may not be true) and he was wrong. The more we research the more we will come close to truth this is what I claim, so holding blind faith in this (which is not a religion, it does not require absolute commitment or anything) is annoying to me..

 

[Nasty-Fire]

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

First of all, shut the fuck HemeHaci that wasn't even adressed to you, but to Resonator.

Second, that's all.

Oh wait, third, you clearly can't fucking debate about it too and you cannot even tell if I'm right or wrong or if what you said really makes sense or not. I was just suggesting ideas and if you don't believe in fucking evolution then that's your fucking problem you just have to start believing in something else that makes more sense, like Adam and Eve being dropped on Earth by the Almighty God.

 

[Arasmas]

lol i don't want to get sucked into this horrible discussion, but the accusation that people believe "blindly" in science just like any religion is the stupidest thing ever.

example: you might say i "blindly" believe that plato was a greek philosopher who lived from the 5th century to the 4th century BC. i have no way of verifying this knowledge other than countless reliable sources that tell me it is so. the same such sources tell me that life on earth is constantly undergoing gradual change, which we call evolution. it has nothing to do with blind faith. if i had any reason WHATSOEVER to believe in a divine creation, other than religious texts which are quite frankly the least reliable documents of all, then i would. i actually cannot wrap my head around the fact that you can't understand this

 

[fizz6207]

So what's triggering the evolution in the first place? As you put it, this is constantly happening (haha absurdity at the maximum, varieties in living creatures does not lead to mutation nor evolution just by themselves) and environment is choosing the best suited ones and in the long run reptile becomes human. What you miss is an elephant whether it is hairy or not is an elephant, excessively long periods of time wont change it. Also dominant genes would supress recessive genes in phenotype so recessive genes' transport in time is thus guaranteed (I hope this part is clear). I am not even diving into first life form theories (but no research is satisfying there yet)..

What's crucial here is believing blindly in such a theory, which has so many holes and fallacies it is ridiculous in my eyes.

That theory and fact thing is funny too, everybody knows an apple falls down. Newton just modeled it (and funny enough it was accepted as a law which was just simplification of lorentz transformations which according to special relativity, this is only a good approximation at much smaller speeds than the speed of light, which again may not be true) and he was wrong. The more we research the more we will come close to truth this is what I claim, so holding blind faith in this (which is not a religion, it does not require absolute commitment or anything) is annoying to me..

lol you just keep showing a failure to grasp the basic concepts, and the fact you have little knowledge in this field just confounds this. For example
"dominant genes would supress recessive genes in phenotype"
youre forgetting that dominant and recessive genes arent the only ways in which gene expression works, it was simply the first to be discovered (by Mendel) and also one of the easiest to describe, hence why it serves its purpose for dumbing down this conversation.

Also, scientists have recently discovered that the platypus is possibly a "missing link" as such between reptile and mammal, as it expresses genes common to both. So stop with the mammals cant have come from reptiles drivel.

"What's crucial here is believing blindly in such a theory, which has so many holes and fallacies it is ridiculous in my eyes."

You have thus far not demonstrated one hole or fallacy, if you were to introduce any of your concepts into the academic arena you would be thoroughly laughed out of there as a complete moron. Of course I already explained the scrutiny it takes to have an idea accepted by the academic arena but you seem to have chosen to ignore this for your own idea that we "blindly" follow evolution. There has never been any blind faith in evolution. But every bit of actual research out there has never found anything contradictory to evolutionary principles, hence why it is held so strongly.

Currently there is a challenge to creationists to find an example of just one gene that cant be traced back to an evolutionary origin. If such a thing was achieved it would be the first piece of real evidence against evolution. Of course the creationist organisations have refused the challenge, possibly because they know that they dont stand a chance? (You tube isnt working for me atm but when it is I will supply the link).

 

[Korlich]

So what's triggering the evolution in the first place? As you put it, this is constantly happening (haha absurdity at the maximum, varieties in living creatures does not lead to mutation nor evolution just by themselves) and environment is choosing the best suited ones and in the long run reptile becomes human. What you miss is an elephant whether it is hairy or not is an elephant, excessively long periods of time wont change it. Also dominant genes would supress recessive genes in phenotype so recessive genes' transport in time is thus guaranteed (I hope this part is clear). I am not even diving into first life form theories (but no research is satisfying there yet)..

What's crucial here is believing blindly in such a theory, which has so many holes and fallacies it is ridiculous in my eyes.

That theory and fact thing is funny too, everybody knows an apple falls down. Newton just modeled it (and funny enough it was accepted as a law which was just simplification of lorentz transformations which according to special relativity, this is only a good approximation at much smaller speeds than the speed of light, which again may not be true) and he was wrong. The more we research the more we will come close to truth this is what I claim, so holding blind faith in this (which is not a religion, it does not require absolute commitment or anything) is annoying to me..

Sigh...mutation happens when ppl have babies when ppl have cancer etc. so OC it happens all the time. Enviroment isnt choosing ANYTHING. Over time species ADAPT to their local enviroment (ecosystem). There´s a diff. between a mahmut and todays elephants as well between a wolf and a chiuaua, just accept it. You are right about one thing this theory isnt perfect, but it is still today what most convingcenly explains the origins of the species. If you think you can improve the theory or come up with a better one, please do.

 

[Nasty-Fire]

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

It can be a form of atheism if you talk about the atheistic Satanism, otherwise it's not, and it's part of the random and unpopular religions that I would be classifying in "Others".

Back to subject, I mean yeah, the theory of evolution is not just a shit thrown up like that, like a random theory... every aspects have been exposed before making any conclusions - that's how scientists work - and for now, there are no contradictions, maybe just some physic evidences missing, like the "missing link" that's not anymore missing. It's the same with quantic physics and relativism; it hasn't been contradicted and has always applied, that's why we trust it though it could be possible that it be completly false. That's skepticism; you take what will most possibly be true based on evidence and absence of contradiction and considering that it is not necesserily true. Anyway too many words in this thread, glad to be the threadmaker.

Obivously, while reading, and even if I just have little knowledge about evolution, I felt like you (HemeHaci) were just out of the road and also knew too little about evolution to be able to argue. Reelo has explained very well how to understand it, but you failed at it. Evolution is now a generally accepted fact and if anyone dares to say the opposite, he must whether prove that it's wrong (good luck) or show something that explains better.

 

[Antyman]

the only thing that sill really can't be explained is the behavior of species. why beach-hippos walk to the ocean once a year, are they slowly becoming ocean-living animals? why whales swim up on the ocean for a certain death. are they becoming land animals? why anglers (the ugly-fuck fish) are mating like they do (the male angler kind of morphs into the skin by gettin a nice bite-grip on the female, and becomes a lump on the female, who's gettin babies) <-- I wish I could do that.

the "impossible" question to answer, wether the egg or the chicken came first, is nowadays pretty easy to answer.. obviously the egg did, as it's a slightly mutated Falcon!

 

[de_aztec]

wait hemehaci, why are you bashing someone for following evolution because it has so many 'holes' and 'fallacies'? Isn't that a bit hypocritical considering you follow a religion?

btw arasmas who is in ur avatar?

 

[Resonator]

like Adam and Eve being dropped on Earth by the Almighty God.

You're a fucking liar. You didn't read half of what I have written, did you? I'm pretty sure I established with logic that Adam and Eve were created by the builders, not God...

 

[cuntface]

the builders lmaoo

 

[Antyman]

Bob, the creater of mankind.

 

[Resonator]

Ok, ok, it does sound very ridiculous...But in all the things I've researched, whereas you have not, I would imagine my opinion outweighs yours by JUST a fair bit. If not a fucking mile.

Some people will just never get it. And people say I have the closed mind...

 

[cuntface]

oh researched it must be true

 

[Resonator]

Well, comparing your big nothing to my big something...

 

[cuntface]

lol i think everyone can see that there just isn't any point trying to reason with you, you're clearly completely mad