It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:17 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Evolution
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:26 pm 
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 YIM  Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:20 am
Posts: 332
Location: Estes Park, CO
Gender: male
My buddy came to visit me last night and we got into a huge argument. He is 100% against evolution and I am 100% for evolution.

What do you think about evolution?


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:36 pm 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:47 am
Posts: 251
Location: Somerset, Great Britain
Gender: male
The Theory of Evolution is true. Natural Selection is what caused all of us to be here.

That's my views anyway.

_________________
Antony
Founder of OE

Image


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:47 pm 
Major
Major
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:38 am
Posts: 4767
Location: In your closet , the netherlands
Gender: male
Ant59 wrote:
The Theory of Evolution is true. Natural Selection is what caused all of us to be here.

That's my views anyway.

I coulden't say it better :P

_________________
ImageImage
best rank/Best rank of alliance which I led 1#
Most amount of crystals/relics held 355/3
Total amount of crystals/relics obtained 2500~/11


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:48 pm 
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 YIM  Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:20 am
Posts: 332
Location: Estes Park, CO
Gender: male
I agree with both of you.. I believe in the theory of evolution. But, how do you explain it to someone who only believes what it says in the bible.. word for word... and doesn't want to listen to reason?


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:08 pm 
Major
Major
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:38 am
Posts: 4767
Location: In your closet , the netherlands
Gender: male
Nothing


I tried it , you will fail :(

_________________
ImageImage
best rank/Best rank of alliance which I led 1#
Most amount of crystals/relics held 355/3
Total amount of crystals/relics obtained 2500~/11


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:38 pm 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 797
Gender: male
raiens80 wrote:
I agree with both of you.. I believe in the theory of evolution. But, how do you explain it to someone who only believes what it says in the bible.. word for word... and doesn't want to listen to reason?

if its a friend, hold your ground, dont budge for him.

i miss general... he would have put up a good discussion here

if it is some stranger, especially an uneducated one. there are several ways to deal with it.

1. Evolution is scientifically accepted by an overwhelmingly large majority of scientists, these people put their lives into determining the truth through scientific method.

2. Evolution is not abiogenisis, the two are completely different. its like atomic theory is not the study of where atoms come from. Evolution is how speciesisation (FUDGE, i forgot the word and how to spell) occurs

3. from bacterium in labs, to darwins notes of finches. natural selection has been proven. DNA splicing to create mutations has also been proven to occur.

4. if god was perfect, if he was anything even close to efficient, he wouldnt leave 70%+ of our DNA as worthless inactive trash to be mutated in order to activate the genes. only natural selection allows for a vast amount of DNA in all living things to be so useless. the massive amount of inactive genes also allows for mutations to occur with mainly neutral effects on the organism

5. there is no croco duck. there is no sudden jumps in species. that is supernatural fairytale. species take several hundred generations in large populations for even one trait to become visible.

6. evolution doesnt result in extremes unless there are extremes of environment and the organism must first tolerate it.
eg. no flying zebras as zebras do not need to fly. they are more likely to become faster.
eg. no crocoduck as a duck would become extinct if forced to become a crocodile, and a crocodile would become extinct if forced to become a duck. it becomes a genetic dead end.

7. Natural selection explains the watchmaker argument. abiogenisis, scientifically speaking, is in its baby steps. a tonne of hypothesis, with only RNA world and Iron Sulphur world being scientifically viable for development and refinement.
wiki abiogenisis.

_________________
Image

-~~Retired Spammer~~-

~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~

Discussion+debates and World Events.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:41 pm 
Lieutenant Major
Lieutenant Major
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 2044
Gender: male
I don`t believe in it. I am going to post something that someone else wrote on a different forum but I agree with what it says.
Quote:
When Darwin first published his little theory, little existed to prove it or disprove it.

However, one could say that it's been disproven. Personally, I think that it's alive, but only barely.

You see, Darwin proposed and hoped for there to be a sort of "general branching out" kinda thing, with fossils leading into what would be the next evolutionary step...etc. etc.

However, so far, this is not the case. Most of the specimens used to try and prove it have been found to actually be false. And I jest not.

Another of it's weakpoints is it's main ingrediant: time. Time to evolve, that is. So far, as far as humans are concerned, very little evidance that is defiantely, beyond a doubt older then like fifteen thousand years is scarce. Which makes one wonder if there is a "missing link".

The term "missing link" refers to the supposed step between man and ape. So far, this "missing link" is the main thing people point to when arguing against Evolution. As long as no one finds it, Evolution remains a theory. And yes, it is a theory; it is not proven and is not techincally yet Scientific Fact, contrary to what tecahers's may say. (It's considered scientific fact when it's proven...)

By the way, I hope no gets mad. I'm using a debating tone here, not a flaming voice. I can be a lot meaner then this.


On a final note, I am dubios about Darwin's little theory for three reasons:

1. It's a little unlikely, to my lowly mind. :D

2. It's association with Humanism makes me wary of it.

3. Most of the proof that has been given in recent times has been found severely wanting.


However, we know that Evolution is possible on a small scale. You know, like Adaptations. There's a difference.


_________________
My Last World - E4
Alliance - BULe - Rank: 2
My Rank - 21


-Retired-


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:08 pm 
Private
Private
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:13 am
Posts: 9
Gender: male
Do I believe in evolution? Not so much. Natural selection? Now that's a different story. And for those of you wondering, yes, there is a difference. A huge one.

First lets look at evolution. Evolution, according to my good ol' biology book, defines it something like this: a random change in an organisms DNA.

A random change? Why on earth would that happen? That's like an elephant growing an arm or turning purple. There's no reason, it's just a random change.

Now lets look at the more believable theory of natural selection. Natural selection is when a species mainly breeds with another member of the species because they have a trait needed for survival.

Evolution makes no sense to me. Why would the DNA change? Just for the heck of it?

_________________
"They're shooting laser beams out of their radioactive super-chords!"
"WuuuUUUUTTT!?"


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:00 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 797
Gender: male
Oracle wrote:
I don`t believe in it. I am going to post something that someone else wrote on a different forum but I agree with what it says.
Quote:
When Darwin first published his little theory, little existed to prove it or disprove it.

However, one could say that it's been disproven. Personally, I think that it's alive, but only barely.

You see, Darwin proposed and hoped for there to be a sort of "general branching out" kinda thing, with fossils leading into what would be the next evolutionary step...etc. etc.

However, so far, this is not the case. Most of the specimens used to try and prove it have been found to actually be false. And I jest not.

Another of it's weakpoints is it's main ingrediant: time. Time to evolve, that is. So far, as far as humans are concerned, very little evidance that is defiantely, beyond a doubt older then like fifteen thousand years is scarce. Which makes one wonder if there is a "missing link".

The term "missing link" refers to the supposed step between man and ape. So far, this "missing link" is the main thing people point to when arguing against Evolution. As long as no one finds it, Evolution remains a theory. And yes, it is a theory; it is not proven and is not techincally yet Scientific Fact, contrary to what tecahers's may say. (It's considered scientific fact when it's proven...)

By the way, I hope no gets mad. I'm using a debating tone here, not a flaming voice. I can be a lot meaner then this.


On a final note, I am dubios about Darwin's little theory for three reasons:

1. It's a little unlikely, to my lowly mind. :D

2. It's association with Humanism makes me wary of it.

3. Most of the proof that has been given in recent times has been found severely wanting.


However, we know that Evolution is possible on a small scale. You know, like Adaptations. There's a difference.



awesome. none of your own material.
typical religious nub who is new to the game.

on facebook because of me and like 7 other people smashing arguments, they have closed most religious discussion boards due to people being offended, to be fair, some of the people were really militant and used more attacks then anything else, swearing was pretty heavy there.

Quote:
When Darwin first published his little theory, little existed to prove it or disprove it.

actually, he spent several years aboard the beagle collecting evidence. this evidence was so compelling that he quickly deconverted from his views of a literal translation of genesis in the bible.

from mendel (dunno spelling, he is the father of genetics), he learnt that traits could be inherited and came across the only logical assumption. natural selection.
natural selection would allow positive traits to pass on while negative traits would die out through competition.
over time, it would only be logical that the species would change as the environment changes. eventually becoming completely different.

Quote:
You see, Darwin proposed and hoped for there to be a sort of "general branching out" kinda thing

100% wrong. he knew that traits could be passed on, but back then there was no such thing as DNA or specialized genes.
he merely needed more evidence to concrete his theory. which couldnt possibly be provided at his time.
in other words. he was a genius beyond his time.

Quote:
However, so far, this is not the case. Most of the specimens used to try and prove it have been found to actually be false.

archaeopteryx was a dinosaur with feathers. this showed that dinosaurs had feathers. it wasnt even close to a bird as some would say, in fact it was so useless it was an evolution dead end and its line died out completely without adjusting to the changing environment.

Quote:
Another of it's weakpoints is it's main ingrediant: time. Time to evolve, that is. So far, as far as humans are concerned, very little evidance that is defiantely, beyond a doubt older then like fifteen thousand years is scarce. Which makes one wonder if there is a "missing link".

litaaatilak or something like that. it shows a fish with MASSIVE pectoral fin with muscle spaces enough for it to "walk" if a fish did adapt enough to get onto land, the species filling in such a niche would do it at a pace that no transitional fossils would exist and if such a fossil did exist it would probably be looked warily at rather then with excitement.
you do know what an ecological niche is?
when there is an open niche, species quickly try to fill in this uncontested gap of easy living resulting in survival of the fittest but with a catalyst. this niche can open when there is a vaccuum (ie. no natural predators allowed pigeons to explosively fill urban areas and they become completely cut off from their previous habitat, rock cave things. however they compete with like 3 other bird species showing that an empty niche is really a really full niche)
because the species is in a new niche, it must adapt to change. eventually becoming so different it can no longer naturally conceive offspring with its older diverging species

Quote:
The term "missing link" refers to the supposed step between man and ape. So far, this "missing link" is the main thing people point to when arguing against Evolution. As long as no one finds it, Evolution remains a theory. And yes, it is a theory; it is not proven and is not techincally yet Scientific Fact, contrary to what tecahers's may say. (It's considered scientific fact when it's proven...)

you have no idea what you are talking about.
elementary biology states that a missing link is the organism between two species along the evolutionary line.
see titilaalik or something.
if you really want it, ask again and ill give you the wiki when i find it.

theory? EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE USED TO EXPLAIN A GROUP OF FACTS IS A THEORY
atomic theory?
first it started all atoms were solid spheres, this was accurate at the scientific knowledge at the time.
then it became thompsons plum pudding model
then rutherford got round orbitals
then shrodinger got quantam physics running which quantam theory has 0 proof but is yet to be disproven by current scientific method.

THEORYS CAN CHANGE.
IT IS ACCURATE FOR NOW. WHEN IT IS WRONG YOU CAN CHANGE IT. it is what makes it more accurate then GODDUNIT.

theory of gravity? pfft its just a theory
theory of relativity? pfft einstein is wrong.
theory of atom? pfft wrong
quantam theory? no proof GTFO.

scientific method is wonderful in this way. it allows for accuracy to update.

for now. evolution is 99% correct. overwhelmingly supported by scientists. dont bring this BS up again.

Quote:
On a final note, I am dubios about Darwin's little theory for three reasons:

1. It's a little unlikely, to my lowly mind. :D

2. It's association with Humanism makes me wary of it.

3. Most of the proof that has been given in recent times has been found severely wanting.


However, we know that Evolution is possible on a small scale. You know, like Adaptations. There's a difference.

your mind is too lowly :D

humans are animals deal with it, we are specially smart mammals. DEAL WITH IT. WE HAVE ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR DEAL WITH IT

recent proof has shown new species of bacteria.

there is no micro macro evolution.

THERE IS ONLY EVOLUTION

adaptions eventually result in more species through speciesiation.

i suggest you find out what evolution is exactly.
it is the theory of how speciesation occurs.

ORIGIN OF SPECIES by darwin. NOT. ORIGIN OF LIFE. thats abiogenisis
nor. ORIGIN OF MUTATIONS. nor ORIGINS OF PONIES. nor ORIGINS OF TABLES.
origin of species.

notice the hard tone. im getting rid of silly here.

if you wish to continue, bring something that takes longer then 5 minutes for me to make it look stupid :D

_________________
Image

-~~Retired Spammer~~-

~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~

Discussion+debates and World Events.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:10 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 797
Gender: male
root wrote:
Do I believe in evolution? Not so much. Natural selection? Now that's a different story. And for those of you wondering, yes, there is a difference. A huge one.

First lets look at evolution. Evolution, according to my good ol' biology book, defines it something like this: a random change in an organisms DNA.

A random change? Why on earth would that happen? That's like an elephant growing an arm or turning purple. There's no reason, it's just a random change.

Now lets look at the more believable theory of natural selection. Natural selection is when a species mainly breeds with another member of the species because they have a trait needed for survival.

Evolution makes no sense to me. Why would the DNA change? Just for the heck of it?

sorry for the double post

its just that the previous one is the size of a novel :D

Quote:
Do I believe in evolution? Not so much. Natural selection? Now that's a different story. And for those of you wondering, yes, there is a difference. A huge one.

oooh the old bait and switch

Quote:
First lets look at evolution. Evolution, according to my good ol' biology book, defines it something like this: a random change in an organisms DNA.

pisses me off when the person tries to make an argument but doesnt actually contribute

evolution is the theory that explains all the species we see today

btw, its a mutation, not X-Men, just a corruption in the copying of DNA. if you actually read through your bio book, provided its not pre school grade. it should tell you that random parts are mistakenly copied or spliced when enzymes or proteins stuff up.

in normal cells it results in either a dead cell or a cancerous mass

in mitosis/meiosis. WOAH THERE. NEW TRAITS!

Quote:
A random change? Why on earth would that happen? That's like an elephant growing an arm or turning purple. There's no reason, it's just a random change.

although possible, the purple gene is unlikely.
there is a recorded case of a pink elephant :D
if it grows another arm that prevents it from running, IT WILL DIE :D and therefore not breed, therefore the mutation will not be passed on to offspring. WOW its natural slection :O
but the genes for an entire functioning arm is nearly impossible to produce, especially in a large mammal, it will probably die in the womb/birth. you can see frogs with messed up bodys as well as chickens.

Quote:
Now lets look at the more believable theory of natural selection. Natural selection is when a species mainly breeds with another member of the species because they have a trait needed for survival.

generally yes, but most species specialize into a given ecological niche. they can breed outside of its specialized niche but not so well. if it does outbreed another species then that leaves a small vaccuum for other species to fill as well, once again providing a catalyst for natural selection to support traits superior

evolution isnt random changes in DNA. you sound silly when you say it like that.
open up your bio book and get a studying :D
actually it kind of is a random change, but it is confined to a given amount of mutation, the zygote/fetus will self terminate if it is stuffed up enough. no point risking mothers life to give birth to offspring that will die anyway. not to say mutations dont get through.

98% mutations are benign, absolutely nothing. they often copy a same string of gene code onto the end of an allelle by random chance accident. 1% a lethal. 1% are positive.
positive is people of east africa having an extra muscle in their thigh to their knee allowing them to own the marathons :D

_________________
Image

-~~Retired Spammer~~-

~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~

Discussion+debates and World Events.


Top
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
WarLingo Android Mobile Game

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Copyright Tacticsoft Ltd. 2008   
Updated By phpBBservice.nl