Zrothum Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 http://forum.forsakenlands.org/showthread.php?t=6527&page=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchaeius Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Pali. Is it not still the "Theory of Evolution" and not "The LAW of Evolution"? More specifically, does not Evolution work best in restrospect? If we place a species in a certain environment, we can use evolution to say why it evolved, but evolution cannot be used to predict the changes that will occur very accurately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Predicting evolution is like trying to predict where an electron is in it's orbital. (Studying that in chem now) But we can portray what we think evolution can have in store for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Yeah, we can't predict everything about evolution, and a lot of our ideas on evolution in the past have been wrong (probably lots today are wrong). The key point is though that they have been wrong within the framework of evolution. Maybe that fossil was out of it's predicted place, but it still works under the theory of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Everything before is evolution. We can understand exactly the evolution that occured in the past. We are always changing and shall change. Evolution ROCKS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 There is no fossil record that proves evolution. Paleontologists look a dead skeleton and then look at another dead skeleton and make a huge leap of faith that they are related because why? They share some similar features? Lots of cars are blue. They all aren't my convertible, nor were they ever at any time the same make or model. Herpetologists claim the mating spar on pythons is from former leg attached. Yet lizards are considered a higher form of reptile than snakes. In fact, constrictors are considered the least developed. Did evolution backfire? And who can you think that a machine as highly specialized as the human body came about from natural selection and evolution? I mean, seriously. If I throw a bunch of metal on the ground, will I get a Swiss watch after enough time goes by? Also, to clarify Celerity, the Law of Entropy states that things left to themselves will tend toward randomness. Obviously, a creative act by a Divine Creator or Designer would not be leaving it unto itself. Again, explain to me how the autonomic nervous system arose from natural selection. I'd love to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 There is no fossil record that proves evolution. Paleontologists look a dead skeleton and then look at another dead skeleton and make a huge leap of faith that they are related because why? They share some similar features? Lots of cars are blue. They all aren't my convertible' date=' nor were they ever at any time the same make or model.[/quote'] Actually, they use geology and physics to date the skeletons, biologists look over them and find similar traits, then all this is brought together and a trail is shown by correlation (this skeleton at this date at this place changes somewhat into this skeleton at a later date at the same place changes somewhat into the next skeleton, etc.) Herpetologists claim the mating spar on pythons is from former leg attached. Yet lizards are considered a higher form of reptile than snakes. In fact, constrictors are considered the least developed. Did evolution backfire? There is a misunderstanding of evolution in that people think scientists mean it is always moving "forward" or towards some ideal. It does nothing of the sort. Species are preferred by natural selection purely by their environment. If the environment favors pythons over lizards, then pythons it is. Why would nature care what we consider a higher form of reptile? And who can you think that a machine as highly specialized as the human body came about from natural selection and evolution? I mean, seriously. If I throw a bunch of metal on the ground, will I get a Swiss watch after enough time goes by? Natural selection is in no way random, as throwing a bunch of metal on the ground would be. Natural selection means that organisms that are better suited to survival in their environment will be more likely to survive than those less suited. Evolution occurs by random mutation, transferred by gene flow. Say you live in a lightless cave. You have two kids, one who by random mutation has slightly better hearing than the other. All other things being equal, that kid is more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on that better hearing. Little things like this add up over hundreds of thousands or millions of years to change species into others. Again, explain to me how the autonomic nervous system arose from natural selection. I'd love to hear it. Say you've got a simple multicellular organism. It consumes, it replicates, repeat. Simple. Replication here isn't always perfect. Sometimes there are changes, mutations. Most of these are going to damage the new replicate in some way, some of them are going to do nothing, and some are going to improve it. Now, imagine how useful it would be for this new organism to randomly have the ability to somehow sense that pressure is being exerted on it? Not sense as in consciously, but a simple biochemical marker released from one point whenever contact is made that triggers a reaction. How useful would this be in finding consumable nutrients? In avoiding damage? In short, this would be very useful in survival. It would replicate itself more. And more. And new replicants who had slightly improved versions of this system would do even better. And so on. This system works so well that it ends up, in some form, existing in almost every style of life form, growing with their other traits to fit them as their sensory needs change. This pattern of slight change combined with happening to fit the environment better, over a couple billion years, produced the modern nervous system. In contrast, if every species were specially designed for its environment, how do you explain species of deep-sea fish who still have eyes, but no longer use them because they are completely useless in their environment? They've grown other methods of sensing prey and danger. If humans were specially designed to walk upright, why does our pelvic structure very closely resemble that of an ape's, which is almost ideal for its hunched-over 4-limbed walking posture? There are examples like this all over the animal kingdom, all of which evolution predicts, and make no sense under an argument of special design, unless you're willing to claim the designer as inept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 I asked about the autonomic nervous system, not the entire system. It's the one that makes your heart beat and your lungs breathe without your conscious thought. So, under evolutionary theory, we are assuming that two creatures continued to remind themselves to breathe long enough for such a system to adapt in them and then they procreated? And again, you keep going back to adaptation within a species, something I've never disputed. Obviously a species adapts to survive in its environment. Popular evolutionary theory however makes the unsubstantiated leap that one species becomes another. Why are there still apes? Why do we not have species caught in between at the moment? Also, with regard to my point regarding the python. Understand what I am saying. Biologists and herpetologists hold that lizards are a more highly adapted species that evolved from snakes, i.e. grew legs in order to be more efficient on land. Venomous snakes, specifically pit vipers, are considered by herpetologists to be the most highly evolved snake species as they are the more efficient predators. Constrictors are considered low man on the totem pole. The spar near the base of the python's tail, however, is assumed by these same scientists to be the remains of a leg structure that it once possessed, even though it doesn't show any other signs of that structure anywhere else on its body. So...what they're telling us is that the snake evolved into a lizard by growing legs that it later shed in order to de-evolve back to a lower life form that is less efficient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Way Up Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 All spiritualities, or "religions," are -almost- all based on one thing-Faith. Faith becomes irrelevant when you bring all sorts of Science into the picture. I wouldn't have to have faith in Santa Clause, after all, if I saw him. Taking a Christain POV, as that's the only one I am familiar with, God asks us to be faithful to him. I don't have all the answers, but I learn more every day. I don't know exactly why God has done what he's done concerning the ways of the Old Testament. However, try to take his POV ono things. Why was man created? I believe that Man was created for companionship. God wanted someone to walk and talk with. God had angels with him. He had beings to give him worship 24/7. In Genesis, it talks about how God himself would come down into the Garden and walk and talk with Adam. So, you make this creature as a being to converse with, in basic terms, to hang out with. All of mankind had/has this purpose. So now we have Man, the creature YOU created, and each and every person you know and love with a love unfathomable by human beings. You want nothing more than for them to acknowledge your presence and ask for your Guidance. So many people think of God as this wicked, evil puppetmaster, pulling the strings and making everyone suffer while he enjoys it all. God wishes our faith because, like any loving Father would(since he's the one who brought us into this world), to help guide us-to help us in this world, the world that Satan runs rampant through. It can be a dog-eat-dog world, but God tries to show us that it doesn't have to be that way. Anyways, you have this scenario, and not only does man not turn to God for guidance, he denies him. He rubs his name in the dirt, and sometimes denies it all-together. So my question is this, and is one I ask myself when I misunderstand things I read in the bible: Who am I to judge God's plan? In accordance with the book of Job, when God appears before him in a tornado asking Job all sorts of questions. I have not journeyed to the springs of the sea, nor have I given orders to Morning, and shown Dawn it's place. In other words, being God's imperfect creation, who am I to judge the Almighty and his ways? If he's up there, knowing and urging me to do what is right, and smart, for me, who am I to question? Like the old saying goes, "Satan's greatest deception is convincing people that he doesn't exist." Sadly, however, people do not come to realize(or choose to acknowledge) this until something life-altering happens, usually in the form of a near-death experience of them or someone really close to them. Even then, some people still refuse to believe. Personally, I would rather choose a life under God's wing and risk being proven wrong, and just totally blinking out of existance when I die, than choosing to deny Him now, and ending up in an eternity of suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Ah, well, the autonomic nervous system in particular I would imagine evolved in a similar fashion, from early simplicity to later complexity. I'm not personally knowledgeable about it, as I haven't studied this in particular, but I don't see it as being terribly different. As for changing from species to species, that's actually more a function of genetic drift, as the DNA coding becomes more and more different because of those random changes during reproduction until suddenly one animal can't reproduce with another, even though they potentially had the same great-great-great-great-etc. grandparent. (Edit: a species is defined as related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.) Edit 2: "The basic pattern of the CNS is highly conserved throughout the different species of vertebrates and during evolution. The major trend that can be observed is towards a progressive telencephalisation: while in the reptilian brain that region is only an appendix to the large olfactory bulb, it represent most of the volume of the mammalian CNS. In the human brain, the telencephalon covers most of the diencephalon and the mesencephalon. Indeed, the allometric study of brain size among different species shows a striking continuity from rats to whales, and allows us to complete the knowledge about the evolution of the CNS obtained through cranial endocasts." Wikipedia's got some good links to the various parts of the nervous system here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_nervous_system As for old species remaining, that's also predicted. The new species doesn't necessarily destroy the old. Evolution isn't going towards a "perfect" being, it's going towards a "good enough" being. If it's good enough to survive, it survives, even if something else just born happens to be just a bit better at survival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Personally' date=' I would rather choose a life under God's wing and risk being proven wrong, and just totally blinking out of existance when I die, than choosing to deny Him now, and ending up in an eternity of suffering.[/quote'] The flaw with that line of logic is that it gives you no guide as to which god (or gods) to worship. Many religions say that if you do not believe that specific religion (Christianity: must believe Jesus is resurrected son of God, Islam: Mohammed spoke to Gabriel and ascended into Heaven, etc.), then you are going to spend eternity suffering in the afterlife. Which one do you choose? All of them have the same risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear, the Angel's Name Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 My flaw is actually reading this whole thread, having participated in, and been on both sides of, debates such as this in the past... but after all the time I have spent reading this thread... I think I am going to go adapt myself out of my clothing and evolve over the next 5 hours into a man who is ready to go to work.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 There is no fossil record that proves evolution. Paleontologists look a dead skeleton and then look at another dead skeleton and make a huge leap of faith that they are related because why? They share some similar features? Lots of cars are blue. They all aren't my convertible' date=' nor were they ever at any time the same make or model. Herpetologists claim the mating spar on pythons is from former leg attached. Yet lizards are considered a higher form of reptile than snakes. In fact, constrictors are considered the least developed. Did evolution backfire?[/quote'] COnstrictors live where again? There environment is similar to the pygmy people living on some god forsaken land island in the pacific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 COnstrictors live where again? There environment is similar to the pygmy people living on some god forsaken land island in the pacific. Constrictors are the most populous version of snake and can be found on every continent that has snakes, including living in close proximity to both pit vipers and large lizards. Nice try....here, have a king brown for your troubles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Constrictors are the most populous version of snake and can be found on every continent that has snakes, including living in close proximity to both pit vipers and large lizards. Nice try....here, have a king brown for your troubles. Hence the reason why evolution hasn't touched them much eh? Why change when they're doing quite fine? Face it Chayesh I am going to win this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Hence the reason why evolution hasn't touched them much eh? Why change when they're doing quite fine? Face it Chayesh I am going to win this argument. You were claiming they were untouched because they were in a closed system without need for change...i.e. deserted island tribe. Yet other species did evolve upward in the same exact enviroment...or pythons evolved downward if you believe the morass of theories burped up by herpetologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 But you proved my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchaeius Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 My flaw is actually reading this whole thread, having participated in, and been on both sides of, debates such as this in the past... but after all the time I have spent reading this thread... I think I am going to go adapt myself out of my clothing and evolve over the next 5 hours into a man who is ready to go to work..ROFL! Not to derail the thread or anything, but that was hillarious. Debate on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Constrictors are the most populous version of snake and can be found on every continent that has snakes, including living in close proximity to both pit vipers and large lizards. Nice try....here, have a king brown for your troubles. As I said, this is actually predicted by evolutionary theory. A new, better adapted species does not necessarily destroy the old, assuming the old is still well adapted enough to survive on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 You were claiming they were untouched because they were in a closed system without need for change...i.e. deserted island tribe. Yet other species did evolve upward in the same exact enviroment...or pythons evolved downward if you believe the morass of theories burped up by herpetologists. *sighs* You keep using these words "upward" and "downward", and I'm telling you that evolution has no such thing in mind. Species evolve towards that which is best suited for the current environment, and the species that aren't BEST suited can still survive if they are well-enough suited. "Upward" and "downward" imply a goal for evolution, a path that it necessarily must take, and this is just plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 *sighs* You keep using these words "upward" and "downward"' date=' and I'm telling you that evolution has no such thing in mind. Species evolve towards that which is best suited for the current environment, and the species that aren't BEST suited can still survive if they are well-enough suited. "Upward" and "downward" imply a goal for evolution, a path that it necessarily must take, and this is just plain wrong.[/quote'] The words upward and downward are the terminology used by the scientists who claim evolution as fact, i.e. more highly evolved, etc. I'm simply reiterating their own statements. If you have issue with it, go take it up with them. As for me, I need more coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 But you proved my point. Not sound rude, but I didn't see a point in there. Please enlighten me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiere Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Well, this definitely beats brsingers threads in numbers, or...just about everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 The words upward and downward are the terminology used by the scientists who claim evolution as fact, i.e. more highly evolved, etc. I'm simply reiterating their own statements. If you have issue with it, go take it up with them. As for me, I need more coffee. More highly evolved in terms of differentiation from ancestry and complexity, not always in terms of suitability for the environment. There's a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 I keep trying to spark up religous debates in game...why doesn't anyone take the bait?!!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.