Evolution

Originally posted by IntaminFan397
First you say that the evolutionary process takes billions of years, then you say that an organism can randomly develop a mutation in it's lifetime, then that mutation continuously pop up (if beneficial) in the offspring. Either mutation is essentially evolution, or it isn't. If it isn't, then it's irrelevant to this discussion, but if it is, then your first statement is incorrect.

Mutation isn't evolution, it is one of the ingredients necessary for it to happen. A mutation can occur randomly, and as I believe it's been agreed, if it's a positive change it will, theoretically, continue to occur in the offspring. HOWEVER, a mutation is not, in itself, evolution.

The evolutionary PROCESS does take billions of years. Until said mutation has become present enough to differentiate between an original population and the "mutated" population, it isn't recognized as evolution. Until then it's simply a trait.

Like Coasterkid said, geographic boundaries help A LOT with that happening. Geographic boundaries aren't necessarily required for it to happen, but they do tend to be a major factor in why you find, say, one species of primate in one location, and another species in a different. Such as primates on South America and Africa: they were probably the same "group" and then when those two continents separated, the populations got split, and then evolved in different directions. Or say why Capybaras are able to be so large in the abundance of the Amazon, yet field mice are small in the less-fertile plains, but they are both rodents.

Oh, and about your whole "complexity" issue. If you can accept that mutation is the basis for evolution, couldn't you accept that a mutation could occur that affects the the structure of a creature? Maybe, say, a mutation that says "I want more nerves in this location" and as that happened over and over again you all of a sudden have eyespots, then even further along you get a brain, and then further you get an entire nervous system?

[Coasterkidmwm]

Originally posted by bicoastalkid
The evolutionary PROCESS does take billions of years. Until said mutation has become present enough to differentiate between an original population and the "mutated" population, it isn't recognized as evolution. Until then it's simply a trait.

You want cladogenesis, not anagenesis.

Image Insert:

16.99 KB

Darwin = anagenesis or "Phyletic Gradualism"
^MOSTLY WRONG^

Eldridge and Gould = cladogenesis or "Punctuated Equilibrium"
^MOSTLY RIGHT^

Excellent argument CoasterKidMWM ... very well presented.

Evolution. OK boys and girls - pay attention.

The facts:

1. We have a plethera of apes TODAY.
2. We have a plethera of humans TODAY.

The problem:

Why do we not have 1/2 human and 1/2 ape creatures TODAY?

The answer:

It is because the theory of evolution is crap. It falls apart at this very simple level. This is the one thing NO ONE can explain. From kiddies on a coaster board to expert scientists; no one can offer an explanation as to why we do not see those 1/2 and 1/2 creatures TODAY.

The lame excuse:

Create a fairy tale about a "missing link".

What kills this rationale:

Survival of the fitest is crap in this situation. Why? Apes do nothing for us today. It would seem that a higher functioning ape (a 1/2 and 1/2 creature) would be far more beneficial to the world than a dumb ape sitting in a cage. If anything, they could be trained to do yard work.

The final straw:

Let's say for argument sake that 85% of the world has been explored and documented TODAY. Are you telling me that the "missing link" is hidden somewhere in the unexplored 15%? Nonsense. If they were that smart they would have figured out a way to make themselves known to us TODAY.

Discussion over. Expect no more replies to this from me, you are merely wasting your time going on and on. Face it, you are seeking an explanation to justify your own existence, when there is only one thing that will fill the void in your life.

Proverbs 15:2 "The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly."

Pwned ... [flush]

And this is for Real alone -- if anyone gets this, he will and no it is not a flame kiddies so don't try to fan any flames.

Proverbs 26:4 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."

[Coasterkidmwm]

Originally posted by TConwell
Why do we not have 1/2 human and 1/2 ape creatures TODAY?

What part of we didn't come from monkeys don't you people understand? Seriously I must have said this at least 3 times. We came from a little tree shrew.

The "half man half ape" creature is dead. Just like the half horse half hippo creature is dead. It's dead. It adapted to its new challenges and environments. One adaptation is humans, the other is monkeys. Period.

The tree shows humans and the "half monkey half man" splitting off to form their own branch, which then split more times, and are now discontinued.

You're still thinking in anagenesis and don't understand exactly what is going on. I also commend your wuss way out strategy of saying that you're not going to reply anymore.

Congratulations on pointing out what has been well known by everyone since the 1970's and answered with punctuated equilibrium.

Proverbs owns people...I love it.

I would say weve explored something like 60-65% of the world. Theres too much earth unexplored and too much sea thats totally untouched. And might never be touched.


My problem is that while theres this plethora of evidence, alot of it is compeltely unknown to us. We categorize it into where we think it should fit based on certain knowns, but thats as far as it gets.

The bigger hurdle for evolution is the presense of transitional fossils. I however dont know how we can base this theory on fossils of animals that were never examined or recorded by humans and then all of the sudden know exactly where they fit into the chain of animals and then suddenly it starts to form the evolutionary chain.

Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out.

My other problem, while this person tried to avoid it, is that its based mostly on chance! You cannot say that Natural Selection has more to do with it! Why? The chance happens and without the chance - natural selection doesnt work or exist. Natural Selection is like gravity; its a given. Of COURSE the stronger animals win. Of COURSE the deformed ones lose. How is this somehow a ground breaking discovery? If chance and luck doesnt give Natural Selection something to work with youve got species with no faults and everyones the same and thus chance would still precede and there wouldnt be any true deciding factors on why one organism lives or dies.

There is just far too much we dont know, will never know and will never be capable of knowing. Evolution on the more basic stages - its definatly true. Animals and insects adapt to their surroundings and stimuli all the time. But tracing it as far back as the beginning - science will never know enough because humans will never be able to wrap their brains around it.

Want a good read?
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... wnes.shtml

Nobel Prize winner. Scientist. Its quite fascinating.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Originally posted by Real
My other problem, while this person tried to avoid it, is that its based mostly on chance! You cannot say that Natural Selection has more to do with it! Why? The chance happens and without the chance - natural selection doesnt work or exist.

Again thank you for joining the 1970's.

^I took that from a very current website.

Plus, it still refers to cladogenis. Cladogenesis is evolution that results in the splitting of a lineage. How does that split occur?

Oh and your image makes no sense. How about this?

[Coasterkidmwm]

The geographic barrier I mentioned and showed in a picture or an environmental change. I hate repeating myself over and over again.

Also since when is a physicist a paleontologist? They're a very different study. That would be like a mathematician giving acting lessons.

Oh I see it now. Maybe if you contracted someone to use something other than paint Id have understood it. I like when you repeat yourself.

But you still didnt answer me. A mutation can occur that allows an animal to get around a specific barrier. So...?

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Homo_erectus

Some people here might not know that there were earlier, unltimately unsuccessful documented species similar to humans. Probably disease, climate conditions or something else killed off that species. Of course, people are forgetting the obvious:

http://www.originsnet.org/eramp.html

and remember this?

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

To say that humans have not undergone evolution is merely to ignore the facts.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Originally posted by Real
But you still didnt answer me. A mutation can occur that allows an animal to get around a specific barrier. So...?

Mmkay.

You have a big group of mooses in a forested region. Everyone is happy and it's magical with rainbows over the sky and everything. Since there are always goofballs and weird things around, one of the mooses has a much larger nose than the others. The ratio of weirdos to normals will be the same if there are 10,000 mooses or just 1,000 mooses. Say this is a small population of mooses, we'll make it 100. Mr. Nearby McAngry Volcano blows it's load and pulls a mount saint Helens so there is a gigantic landslide and now 9/10 of the mooses are cut off from 1/10 of the mooses.

Weirdo happened to be in that 1/10 population of mooses. Suddenly weirdo isn't so weird anymore. Lots of inbreeding occurs because those mooses are isolated, and you end up with a bunch of weird big nosed mooses. Is this difficult to understand?

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

Evolution is not about gaining complexity.

If going from a tree dwelling marsupial to a human isn't considered gaining complexity, then I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

We didn't "come from" a monkey like I said above, it was a tree dwelling marsupial if you really want to get it right. Monkeys followed a different evolutionary path.

Where did I ever say that we came from a monkey? That would be completely foolish to say. I said "primate-like" ancestor, and that is indeed what the theory says humans evolved from.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

I don't understand how you can sit on your tailbone (yay vestigal organs) and not believe in any of this. I mean come on, you have evidence for this, IN YOUR OWN ASS, in your mother's ass, in your dad's ass, and your friend's asses. In everyone's ass you know. there is strong evidence saying it happened.

Evidence doesn't equal proof, and in this case logic is going against the evidence. That's why I find it pretty easy not to believe in.

Originally posted by Real

Eh, incorrect. If thats the case, look at all the mutations that happen to humans that are 100% detrimental to their health and in some cases shorten life spans. I would venture to say majority of mutations are bad and only a minute few are actually good.


And you have to be the most ignorant of people, even if you dont believe in God, to say He is magic. Thats a laugh. Ive instantly lost respect for you. Be intelligent like evolution says you should be.

My comment on the mutations was not implying that all, or even most mutations are beneficial to an organism. I was speaking of the mutations that go along with evolution, and help the organism adapt better to it's surroundings.

And I don't think I even mentioned God in this topic at all, let alone say He is magic. I don't know where you got that from.

Originally posted by bicoastalkid

Oh, and about your whole "complexity" issue. If you can accept that mutation is the basis for evolution, couldn't you accept that a mutation could occur that affects the the structure of a creature? Maybe, say, a mutation that says "I want more nerves in this location" and as that happened over and over again you all of a sudden have eyespots, then even further along you get a brain, and then further you get an entire nervous system?

I can't see that happening, as I don't believe something like a random mutation would be able to form a brain over time. The organism may change in just about any way from a mutation, as long as complexity is not gained. More nerves is simply increasing the number of something already existing, not creating a new organ altogether.

Originally posted by IntaminFan397

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

Evolution is not about gaining complexity.

If going from a tree dwelling marsupial to a human isn't considered gaining complexity, then I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

We didn't "come from" a monkey like I said above, it was a tree dwelling marsupial if you really want to get it right. Monkeys followed a different evolutionary path.

Where did I ever say that we came from a monkey? That would be completely foolish to say. I said "primate-like" ancestor, and that is indeed what the theory says humans evolved from.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

I don't understand how you can sit on your tailbone (yay vestigal organs) and not believe in any of this. I mean come on, you have evidence for this, IN YOUR OWN ASS, in your mother's ass, in your dad's ass, and your friend's asses. In everyone's ass you know. there is strong evidence saying it happened.

Evidence doesn't equal proof, and in this case logic is going against the evidence. That's why I find it pretty easy not to believe in.

Originally posted by Real

Eh, incorrect. If thats the case, look at all the mutations that happen to humans that are 100% detrimental to their health and in some cases shorten life spans. I would venture to say majority of mutations are bad and only a minute few are actually good.


And you have to be the most ignorant of people, even if you dont believe in God, to say He is magic. Thats a laugh. Ive instantly lost respect for you. Be intelligent like evolution says you should be.

My comment on the mutations was not implying that all, or even most mutations are beneficial to an organism. I was speaking of the mutations that go along with evolution, and help the organism adapt better to it's surroundings.

And I don't think I even mentioned God in this topic at all, let alone say He is magic. I don't know where you got that from.

Originally posted by bicoastalkid

Oh, and about your whole "complexity" issue. If you can accept that mutation is the basis for evolution, couldn't you accept that a mutation could occur that affects the the structure of a creature? Maybe, say, a mutation that says "I want more nerves in this location" and as that happened over and over again you all of a sudden have eyespots, then even further along you get a brain, and then further you get an entire nervous system?

I can't see that happening, as I don't believe something like a random mutation would be able to form a brain over time. The organism may change in just about any way from a mutation, as long as complexity is not gained. More nerves is simply increasing the number of something already existing, not creating a new organ altogether.

So would you also agree that an eye could not be developed over time?
ANY mutation adds information to the gene, granted this information may be corrupt, or, more likely, it will have no effect at all on the organism, but some mutations will be positive, and change the organism slightly, and its offspring and generations after will be so vastly different. Evolution is not about gaining complexity, that is true, you need to get it through your head that mutation+natural selection=Evolution, granted genetic drift will have a say in it, but genetic drift is completely random. really do not know what complexity is by your definition, but things like a brain, and an eye can indeed form through evolution.

TConwell and IntaminFan... you both make my brain hurt for COMPLETELY different reasons.

TC, your devotion to your faith is, in some inexplicable way, commendable, but your lack of interest in the subject you're arguing against proves you to be either unknowledgeable on the subject or simply unwilling to explore OR understand them. Also, your Biblical reason for exiting on a false high did nothing to help your argument.

IntaminFan, you say that LOGIC, and whose I still don't know, goes against evolution? Goes against the slow gain of complexity? Okay, well tell me HOW. If your argument can come across as well supported and reasonable without containing anything resembling the phrases "it's just not logical", "it's stupid", or "it just can't happen" then you may save yourself from looking like a complete fool. IF you did actually present such an argument it would, or probably should, contain the phrase "I'm too lazy to look into it" or "I just don't understand." You statement that "More nerves is simply increasing the number of something already existing, not creating a new organ altogether." proves to me that you lack even a basic understanding of anatomy, the structure of organs at all, and some key concepts behind evolution in the first place.

Also, whoever said 'evidence does not equal proof", I'd really love an explanation of how our judicial system works because, DAMN have I had the wrong I idea. I guess evolution is the OJ Simpson of science.

Originally posted by CoasterkidmwmYou want cladogenesis, not anagenesis.

Oh, I understood. I guess there is some slightly bad wording in my sentence. I was saying that the branch with the mutation isn't really a branch until there's enough numbers to recognizably be a different species. I wasn't saying that the original population would all mutate, but that over time, from the breeding of the original population with the one mutated, there would eventually split in numbers between those with the mutated gene, and those without as the two different groups moved on along time. This really assumes that the original doesn't die out. The main point was that a single organism having a mutation doesn't necessarily mean it's evolved.

i beleve it does exsits but as for where its going i just dont care cuz i wont be on this plane of excistance to witness it

Originally posted by bicoastalkid

TC, your devotion to your faith is, in some inexplicable way, commendable, but your lack of interest in the subject you're arguing against proves you to be either unknowledgeable on the subject or simply unwilling to explore OR understand them. Also, your Biblical reason for exiting on a false high did nothing to help your argument.

Thanks for the flame. You got a bucket of water or something that I can put this fire out with?

[hyyyper]

He is kinda right, your argument made no sense, and if some parts did, they were easily to prove wrong

Well, since we do not have a common frame of reference for one another, it would of course make no sense hyyyper. For if we do not have the same understanding, we will collectively continue to go round and round, gaining no ground, and looking no different than a monkey throwing feces at the zoo.

"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." (Proverbs 18:2

[jayman]

i don't know a bout you guys, but um, does your tail itch sometimes?

Take a shower Jay.

Originally posted by TConwell

Well, since we do not have a common frame of reference for one another, it would of course make no sense hyyyper. For if we do not have the same understanding, we will collectively continue to go round and round, gaining no ground, and looking no different than a monkey throwing feces at the zoo.

"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." (Proverbs 18:2

Keep going .... you make the last one truer with each post.

Be a little open minded, you claim to have seen the light but you're pretty locked in on your views.

Originally posted by CalawayPark

Be a little open minded, you claim to have seen the light but you're pretty locked in on your views.

With your own words you show your ignorance. To imply that I have "seen the light" would mean that I have FOUND TRUTH. Therefore, participating with you guys as you go round and round in an effort to convince one another of theories makes no sense. If I already know the truth, why would I want to continue to debate theories? Sit back and watch, there is actually a method here at work.

"Do you see a man who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for him." (Proverbs 29:20)

Originally posted by TConwell

Originally posted by CalawayPark

Be a little open minded, you claim to have seen the light but you're pretty locked in on your views.

With your own words you show your ignorance. To imply that I have "seen the light" would mean that I have FOUND TRUTH. Therefore, participating with you guys as you go round and round in an effort to convince one another of theories makes no sense. If I already know the truth, why would I want to continue to debate theories? Sit back and watch, there is actually a method here at work.

"Do you see a man who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for him." (Proverbs 29:20)

You're CONSTANTLY bringing up bible versus trying to convince us into believing what it says, and that's exactly what we're doing. You're just trying to be discreet about it.

When I say see the light, I mean you pull your head out of your rear to see there's more than what you had your mind set on before.

Originally posted by CalawayPark

You're CONSTANTLY bringing up bible versus trying to convince us into believing what it says, and that's exactly what we're doing. You're just trying to be discreet about it. When I say see the light, I mean you pull your head out of your rear to see there's more than what you had your mind set on before.

More ignorance ... geesh. OK kid, I am going to talk to you like a 10 year old because that is ALL the intelligence you are showing me here.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Primarily entered into evidence is that no verse I have offered has ANYTHING to do with evolution, so I am not trying to convince anyone that the bible is right on this issue (duh).

Secondly, if you actually look at the verses you will see that the ones I am refering to DISCUSS how to handle a fool; that is (pay attention now): How to deal with someone who continues to argue with no factual basis or practical experience of their own.

There you go kid, now that you had to have it explained to you -- could you please stop trying to attack me now?

"For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men." (1 Peter 2:15)

OH, CKMWM, I have very much enjoyed your responses to this entire thread. Thank you for at least introducing additional scientific research on this.

[hyyyper]

ignorance? yeah right...you're the one who's taking the easy way out by saying it was 'poof' by god and everything was there. Just take a biology class in highschool, be open minden, find the logic and i'm sure you'll see the 'other light'.
And how is god true is any way? can you back it up, doesn't have to be proof, but any evidence at all? or do you just feel it?