Evolution.

[leo33wii]

Evolution isn't simply just creating a new species, it's about adapting to the environment.
The Galapagos Finches evolve every couple years due to food. When the years is good and food is common the finches eat nuts. Their beaks are large like a parrots and use them to break through the nut. When food is scarce the finches have to rely on eating insects within trees. The finches with thin beaks will be more adaptive and be able to pick into tree bark to get these insects.
Those with large parrot-like beaks will die due to hunger. They will not be able to pass their genetics. Thus the thin beaked finches become more dominate. But when food becomes more common the finches with thin beaks will not be strong enough to crack some of the nuts. Eventually some will die and the large beak finches will be dominate again.

This is evolution.

[Shadow]

So religion... there are thousands of religions. How do you know that your selected religion is correct?
Objectively speaking, religion is another theory that you cannot prove; similar to with Darwin's theory. But they do have something in common though:
They were both contemplated by a single person, it's just an idea.
Religion is no more better idea than evolution... except that with evolution there is evidence that shows that such things have happened and that evolution IS still happening.

This isn't the thread for that discussion... Although, if the bible, which when tested has proven historically accurate, is to be considered true, then I would have to say that christianity is the way.

But back to the topic of evolution, care to explain that further? In religion (for the most part, excluding islam) peace is generally promoted to some extent, and value is placed on life, whereas if evolution is true, there is no value on life. There is also no moral standard, for there is no true right or wrong, which means if I kill you how is my punishment to be expected, especially if I considered your death "right".

So now, can we get back to evolution or does religion have to be drug in here?

[Shadow]

Evolution isn't simply just creating a new species, it's about adapting to the environment.
The Galapagos Finches evolve every couple years due to food. When the years is good and food is common the finches eat nuts. Their beaks are large like a parrots and use them to break through the nut. When food is scarce the finches have to rely on eating insects within trees. The finches with thin beaks will be more adaptive and be able to pick into tree bark to get these insects.
Those with large parrot-like beaks will die due to hunger. They will not be able to pass their genetics. Thus the thin beaked finches become more dominate. But when food becomes more common the finches with thin beaks will not be strong enough to crack some of the nuts. Eventually some will die and the large beak finches will be dominate again.

This is evolution.

If evolution was at play there wouldn't be that push/pull. If evolution was at play there would be only one type of bird with the ability to survive either way, not exchange dominance as the food supply cycles.

[The Editor]

Of course there is value to life. Your genes value your life. They also value the lives of those closest to you genetically. The further removed you are genetically from another person the less interest you're genes have in their survival. And then of course there is the business of short term sacrifice for long term gain. Killing another member of the tribe for your own benefit would backfire later because you've lost a valuable hunting partner. And then we invented morality and the concept of right and wrong to enforce such things. Morality is subjective and dominated by social doctrine. There is no objective basis for morality.

[The Editor]

If evolution was at play there wouldn't be that push/pull. If evolution was at play there would be only one type of bird with the ability to survive either way, not exchange dominance as the food supply cycles.

That's not how evolution works. It doesn't have a purpose and it can't see long term. It can only act now. So birds will evolve that exploit the most abundant food source. If another food source becomes more abundant then those birds with mutations that allow them to exploit it will become more numerous. Anybody trying to hold the middle ground will be outdone by specialists who will become more numerous. Simply put, averaging between the two is not an evolutionarily stable strategy as it is vulnerable to exploitation at the time from those who specialise. An oscillation between two stable points is an ESS because until the environment changes those at the stable point have the advantage. When the environment changes a new stable point is found, and this happens again and again and again.

[The Editor]

You really need to read The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins, Shadow.

[Shadow]

Small gradual changes, Shadow.

The argument isn't that there is 'more' information. The argument is that mutations that are beneficial stick around. Sometimes those mutations will involve what may appear to be a loss of information, sometimes they won't. That's immaterial. All there need to be are mutations and a way to find out if they are beneficial.

Nowhere does evolution say that species shouldn't die out. In fact what might be happening is that the environment is changing too fast for beneficial mutations to arise.

So what is your answer? I'd rather have an answer that we can show to be true for nearly all the evidence, that can be corrected over time to agree even more with available evidence, than no answer at all. Religion explains nothing. It doesn't tell you why things happen. All it does is say it happened because it did, and how poor an answer is that? You might as well have given up at "things are here". Religion is a terrible answer to the questions of life, the universe and everything.

Ok, let's forsake the whole more/less information thing for now since it's immaterial at this point. There's still the fact that mutations almost always prove harmful, and the ones that aren't, rarely are enough to qualify as a new breed let alone a new species.

If that's the case people should forget wondering why they're here. Evolution, although it tries to give a better explanation, is no better of an explaination than religion. On one hand you have evolution which says "you are the child of chance, your life is worthless" and on the other "you were created by some deity as entertainment because it was lonely and it values your life".

And you know, evolution does try to explain how things stated to a point, since everything came from something before it. But the problem there is that there is no "original" from which everything else came, so how do we get the variety? Oh, that's right, the only answer evolution gives is that it somehow mutated from something else.

[Shadow]

Of course there is value to life. Your genes value your life. They also value the lives of those closest to you genetically. The further removed you are genetically from another person the less interest you're genes have in their survival. And then of course there is the business of short term sacrifice for long term gain. Killing another member of the tribe for your own benefit would backfire later because you've lost a valuable hunting partner. And then we invented morality and the concept of right and wrong to enforce such things. Morality is subjective and dominated by social doctrine. There is no objective basis for morality.

This is a new thread. Now.

[Kirby]

dude if you do not believe I already told you buy a bunch of bait fish kill off all the ones that you do not like for example you do not like the ones without spots on there eyes kill all of the ones with out spots then the next generation of goldfish will have spots on there eyes

Artifical natural selection. You seem to enjoy killing things try it.

[Shadow]

dude if you do not believe I already told you buy a bunch of bait fish kill off all the ones that you do not like for example you do not like the ones without spots on there eyes kill all of the ones with out spots then the next generation of goldfish will have spots on there eyes

Artifical natural selection. You seem to enjoy killing things try it.

If you want to be an idiot, leave while the big kids play, ok? I already covered that. It still don't change the fact that those are goldfish.

[Kirby]

gold fish humans
you kill them a sea otter does its all the same

and shadow why don't you disproove it then huh?

[The Editor]

Ok, let's forsake the whole more/less information thing for now since it's immaterial at this point. There's still the fact that mutations almost always prove harmful, and the ones that aren't, rarely are enough to qualify as a new breed let alone a new species.

The cumulative effect of small mutations can result in the formation of a new species. If you were to separate a species into two groups and leave them to their own devices with no interaction for a substantial period of time in different environments I will guarantee that they will be unable to produce fertile offspring should they try to breed again. It's already been demonstrated and there is an example in The Foundational Falsehoods.

If that's the case people should forget wondering why they're here. Evolution, although it tries to give a better explanation, is no better of an explaination than religion. On one hand you have evolution which says "you are the child of chance, your life is worthless" and on the other "you were created by some deity as entertainment because it was lonely and it values your life".

And you know, evolution does try to explain how things stated to a point, since everything came from something before it. But the problem there is that there is no "original" from which everything else came, so how do we get the variety? Oh, that's right, the only answer evolution gives is that it somehow mutated from something else.

Evolution doesn't explain how life began, it explains how life went from a bit of protein to elephants, ants, blue whales, komodo dragons, roses, eagles, mosquitoes, spiders, pine trees and cobras, to name but a minuscule fraction of life on this earth. How that protein happened to arrive can simply be put down to chance. Why? Because it only had to happen once. It doesn't matter how improbable the event is, once it's happened it's happened and that's all you need. You cannot invoke chance for a series of events that need to happen multiple times: the odds are too low. But for a one off... Well, like I said, it only has to happen once. Not to say that evolution doesn't allow an omnipotent being/alien race/guy with a time machine to come along with a bit of DNA, drop it in a pond full of amino acids and leave it for a few billion years to see what would happen. Once again, evolution does not try to explain how life began. It explains how life diversified from one little bit of DNA to everything around us.

Also it has to be said that this God of yours clearly doesn't value your life. Ebola, TB, cystic fibrosis, cancer in all its flavours, malaria, diphtheria, meningitis, influenza, pneumonia, the black plague, measles, dementia, etc., etc.. And that's just the diseases that could take you out. Then there're floods, droughts, famines, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and all the fury of nature. And then we have the evils of humanity. If there is a God he doesn't give a fuck about any of us except as creatures to destroy on a whim.

[Shadow]

Disprove What exactly? All you're doing is posting something about goldfish with spots in their eyes! That doesn't change the fact that they are goldfish! Goldfish!

[The Editor]

And birds are dinosaurs.

[Kirby]

Shadow what are you talking about you could say that for everything

They are still moths MOTHS
They are still dogs DOGS
They are still hamsters HAMSTERS

That is not an arguement for anything

[The Editor]

Humans are still primates, mammals, vertebrates and animals, btw.

[Shadow]

The cumulative effect of small mutations can result in the formation of a new species. If you were to separate a species into two groups and leave them to their own devices with no interaction for a substantial period of time in different environments I will guarantee that they will be unable to produce fertile offspring should they try to breed again. It's already been demonstrated and there is an example in The Foundational Falsehoods.



Evolution doesn't explain how life began, it explains how life went from a bit of protein to elephants, ants, blue whales, komodo dragons, roses, eagles, mosquitoes, spiders, pine trees and cobras, to name but a minuscule fraction of life on this earth. How that protein happened to arrive can simply be put down to chance. Why? Because it only had to happen once. It doesn't matter how improbable the event is, once it's happened it's happened and that's all you need. You cannot invoke chance for a series of events that need to happen multiple times: the odds are too low. But for a one off... Well, like I said, it only has to happen once. Not to say that evolution doesn't allow an omnipotent being/alien race/guy with a time machine to come along with a bit of DNA, drop it in a pond full of amino acids and leave it for a few billion years to see what would happen. Once again, evolution does not try to explain how life began. It explains how life diversified from one little bit of DNA to everything around us.

Also it has to be said that this God of yours clearly doesn't value your life. Ebola, TB, cystic fibrosis, cancer in all its flavours, malaria, diphtheria, meningitis, influenza, pneumonia, the black plague, measles, dementia, etc., etc.. And that's just the diseases that could take you out. Then there're floods, droughts, famines, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and all the fury of nature. And then we have the evils of humanity. If there is a God he doesn't give a fuck about any of us except as creatures to destroy on a whim.

Debating an evolutionist or a brick wall? Next time I'm going with the damn wall...

Okay, so by some miracle of chance you get ONE cell. Even IF it has eternity, how does it gain the ability to spawn more cells? And IF it had the ability to start with, there's still the qeustion of how in the hell is it going to go from a bunch of cells floating in a puddle to a group of cells that stick together and actually form something?

And can we please get back to the religion free topic of this thread? I didn't post this thread to debate gods.

[Kirby]

did you know that scientists backwards engineered a chicken to a dinosaur recently by simply reactcivating some genes in the fetus

[Kirby]

1. simple cells made from simple basic cemicals
2. Cells grow more complex
3. Cells interact
4. Cells colonize together
6. Cells become part of the whole

Best example of this is the evolution of the jellyfish. And shadow this did not happen what I just said toke well over a billion years.

[Shadow]

Shadow what are you talking about you could say that for everything

They are still moths MOTHS
They are still dogs DOGS
They are still hamsters HAMSTERS

That is not an arguement for anything

Ok, so it isn't. prove that to me with a couple of fish-monkey hybrids, or perhaps a few winged alligators.

[The Editor]

The cell came after DNA. DNA started the ball rolling, Shadow. What made it unique was its ability to reproduce. Some DNA mutated so that it caused proteins in the soup to bind together to form a wall. Inside this wall further mutation caused localised chemical factories to develop and voila, your cell. After that it wouldn't come as a surprise that the same mutation that caused proteins to bind to form a wall could mutate again to allow walls to stick together and thereby form multicellular organisms. From there further mutations would cause some cells to specialise (in a rather interesting embryological developmental process mentioned in The Greatest Show On Earth). More and more mutations build up until finally you end up with a dolphin. It's really rather beautiful.

[Kirby]

what

[leo33wii]

What's Kirbx's trying to get at is:
You can select which fish is allowed to breed and which cannot. Eventually the ones with the preferred trait will be dominate. Then you can continue selecting traits until you have a goldfish generation (could take 50 years or more) that can no longer breed with any other goldfish species, exactly how the Japanese did with the Koi.
---------------------
You're trying to make the theory of evolution... moral? Or something. Evolution is a natural thing that occurs in nature. It's not a doctrine.
It's like trying to classify fire as a good or an evil thing. At the same time fire is both and none of them. Sure, fire can kill thousands, but it can also keep people safe. Fire IS. It's nothing more than what it is. Evolution is nothing more of a phenomena. It's something that occurs in nature, like time.
Religion on the other hand is something to gives value to certain things.
Humans are the beings that give emotional connotation to objects.
Like a rainy day being a sad day. Religion does that to everything.
The theory of evolution explains that is not how it is, it tells us that what we percieve isn't necessarily correct.
It's telling us "wake up! It's raining outside, but that's it! It's not a sad day. You can still have fun splashing in puddles!"

[Kirby]

I always wondered what would happen if a retard time traveler pissed in the puddle that the first cells where in.

[God]

Well well, There's more of a response than I expected. Let me pick out a place to start, but first are we talking about micro-evolution which is proven and allows species to adapt (such as darkening skin and hence "races") or macro-evolution which would result in one thing becoming another (ie monkeys to men).

"human evolved from monkeys", it should be noted, is a dumb taunt that attempts to play on the ridicule of people with no understanding of anything. monkeys and humans shared a common ancestor about 50 million years ago, humans a great apes shared a common ancestor about 20 million years ago. thats how it worked actually but moving on.

What about fossils? So far they have yet to find a single "missing link", but they've found plenty of fossils that further complicate their theories.

the idea of a "missing link" is made up sensationalism. a vast majority of the organisms that existed on earth do not have well preserved fossils. you don't need to see the fossils of EVERY SINGLE organism between our great ape ancestors and homo sapiens to tell that their is a chain of evolution.

it would be like in a court case where a man is accused of murder, and you have two security videos. one is of the murderer leaving one room. the other is him entering another room 20 seconds later and committing the murder. if both videos are completely verified and true, then you can't mount a substantiative argument against his guilt by saying a video of him walking across the hall from the first room to the second is a "MISSING LINK"

however, you cannot breed two seperate species to achieve a new one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule

Also, they try to keep it on the down-low, as proven by your apparent lack of knowing, but not one of those "intermediate fossils" has actually been a missing link. I have yet to see an instance where they do not come back and say "Oops, we were wrong".

lol, even if "THE MISSING LINK" wasnt made up sensationalist bullshit(which it is), what else would "THE MISSING LINK" be other than an intermediate fossil

Just for you and the sake of this debate I'll entertain the idea that this isn't a theory, but if you ask, even the most die-hard evolutionist will eventually admit that evolution is a theory, and some will admit it's a flawed one at that.

look up the difference between theory and hypothesis