|
My friend contacted me, saying, "since I know you're a part of this community with vast intellectual minds interested in this subject matter, could you ask them to critique my argument?" Well, since I owe him one, here we are.
[begin]
Okay look,
this is all that needs to be said
The law of biogenesis
The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms of the same kind and not from nonliving matter.
that being said how could this happen?
and if "vertical evolution", or evolution from one species to another, were true why would we have the diversity in species and animals we have today? wouldnt there just be one superanimal that could survive anything? why would this evolve into us... and a gorilla, whats the point when evolving into a human would be the best option?
this type of speculation of evolution is crazy.
This theory would require an entire species, or at least one male and one female, to evolve into the exact same thing at relatively the same time.
If you know anything about the sheer complexity of DNA, atoms, or any other single organ of the body then you should easily realize how crazy evolution really is!
There are so many other reasons but I dont have the time to post them all.
If you have any responses, questions, comments, etc then please feel free to ask tell or whatever.
challenge me i need some practice arguments.
Open your eyes people! Evolution from one species to another is easily destroyed by basic scientific principles.
[end]
 
|
Entropy.
I win.
further clarification:
Your friend's argument rests on vast overgeneralizations that indicate a very basic understanding of the concept of evolution.
Firstly: The definition of life itself is that all life must come from other life. But the origins of the first cell are unknown at this time. However, various experimentation has demonstrated that it is possible to generate amino acids under primordial earth conditions-the basis for proteins and the beginnings of life. Entropy dictates that such chaos would eventually produce something.
The second idea, that other organisms "evolve" into something else, is something that came from Pokemon. A creature doesn't evolve into one thing, it has many different things. But these things are for the most part similar to the original parent. However, over time, as these small differences accumulate, and various conditions occur that favor one set of differences over the other, eventually you will have a different species that can no longer mate with the original parent to produce viable offspring. But organisms and evolve into multiple other organisms: for instance, the primates have demonstrated how they can evolve into thousands of different primates. Some are with us still today, some aren't. But it's not that vertical evolution takes place, it's a tree. This is expected by entropy.
Again, your friend's argument that the sudden change of a male and a female of a given type to turn into a different species demonstrates ignorance of how it works. Like I said, the various changes accumulate in these different variations of the same species until they become no longer able to reproduce with the original parent's type to produce a viable child. However, keep in mind that organisms have multiple offspring, and due to the processes of crossing over and random mutation, the offspring will be different from each other. But these changes are gradual-a gorilla didn't give birth to a baby. This is also expected by entropy.
Your friend also assumes that DNA assorts randomly. This is false, there is a concept called linkage, and he simplifies vague biological concepts to support his answer. This isn't an argument, this is rhetoric.
Q.E.D.
|
Organisms evolve to match an environmental niche.
There is more than one type of environment on earth.
In other words, a penguin wouldn't survive very well in the tropics.
Honestly I think that's a terrible argument. This is just the first way I thought of to disprove it.
|
I couldn't agree more, personally I think the guy is an imbecile. But, like I said, you guys are rather more versed on the issue than I am and are more adequately equipped to hand his ass to him, so to speak. 
|
right now i need someone to photoshop darwin's head onto the tshirt guy and on the shirt it says "bitches dont know bout my theory of evolution"
a disturbingly large portion of the anti-evolution crowd don't really know what evolution is.
"evolution from one species to another"
solid proof that you have a crappy understanding as to what evolution is.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 21 2009 01:20 Track wrote:
[begin]
Okay look,
this is all that needs to be said
The law of biogenesis
The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms of the same kind and not from nonliving matter.
that being said how could this happen?
and if "vertical evolution", or evolution from one species to another, were true why would we have the diversity in species and animals we have today? wouldnt there just be one superanimal that could survive anything? why would this evolve into us... and a gorilla, whats the point when evolving into a human would be the best option?
Evolving into a human isn't always the best option. Species evolve traits that prove useful to individuals within the species enough to make them more likely to survive to breeding age. If a species of bird feeds primarily on nuts with a tough shell, the individuals with the strongest beaks/muscles powering those beaks will 1. waste less energy cracking them open and 2. be able to eat some nuts that the others just can't crack, and therefore be more likely to survive. As time progresses, the longer surviving tough-beaked birds will pass on their tough beaks while the weaker beaked ones will die out. Tada, evolution.
However, just because these beaks are good for the nut-eating birds, doesn't mean they are good for all species of birds. Birds that eat insects will need an entirely different beak setup, so not every species of bird will need to develop tough beaks, and for some species it would even be detrimental. Tada, diversification.
this type of speculation of evolution is crazy.
This theory would require an entire species, or at least one male and one female, to evolve into the exact same thing at relatively the same time.
Evolution is a SLOW process. It isn't like some thursday millions of years ago the birds in the above example decided they should all have tougher beaks. Good traits get passed on more frequently than bad traits (due to survival rates) and when you take those changes and throw in millions of years, you see species evolution.
If you know anything about the sheer complexity of DNA, atoms, or any other single organ of the body then you should easily realize how crazy evolution really is!
The people that know the most about those things hold evolution as truth...sorry.
There are so many other reasons but I dont have the time to post them all.
If you have any responses, questions, comments, etc then please feel free to ask tell or whatever.
challenge me i need some practice arguments.
Open your eyes people! Evolution from one species to another is easily destroyed by basic scientific principles.
[end]
To the last line: Perhaps if you only have a high school freshman's understanding of those 'basic scientific principles', it may seem 'destroyed', but once you start to actually study them you realize that evolution is the only theory in existence that supports all of them.
Edit: I can let somebody else handle the abiogenesis part, as I don't understand it yet as fully as I would like to.
|
United States24701 Posts
On May 21 2009 01:24 Caller wrote:
The second idea, that other organisms "evolve" into something else, is something that came from Pokemon.
Hahaha nice.
Man, I'm so sick of anti-evolution arguments already D:
|
On May 21 2009 01:34 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 01:20 Track wrote:
[begin]
Okay look,
this is all that needs to be said
The law of biogenesis
The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms of the same kind and not from nonliving matter.
that being said how could this happen?
and if "vertical evolution", or evolution from one species to another, were true why would we have the diversity in species and animals we have today? wouldnt there just be one superanimal that could survive anything? why would this evolve into us... and a gorilla, whats the point when evolving into a human would be the best option? Evolving into a human isn't always the best option. Species evolve traits that prove useful to individuals within the species enough to make them more likely to survive to breeding age. If a species of bird feeds primarily on nuts with a tough shell, the individuals with the strongest beaks/muscles powering those beaks will 1. waste less energy cracking them open and 2. be able to eat some nuts that the others just can't crack, and therefore be more likely to survive. As time progresses, the longer surviving tough-beaked birds will pass on their tough beaks while the weaker beaked ones will die out. Tada, evolution. However, just because these beaks are good for the nut-eating birds, doesn't mean they are good for all species of birds. Birds that eat insects will need an entirely different beak setup, so not every species of bird will need to develop tough beaks, and for some species it would even be detrimental. Tada, diversification. Show nested quote +
this type of speculation of evolution is crazy.
This theory would require an entire species, or at least one male and one female, to evolve into the exact same thing at relatively the same time.
Evolution is a SLOW process. It isn't like some thursday millions of years ago the birds in the above example decided they should all have tougher beaks. Good traits get passed on more frequently than bad traits (due to survival rates) and when you take those changes and throw in millions of years, you see species evolution. Show nested quote +
If you know anything about the sheer complexity of DNA, atoms, or any other single organ of the body then you should easily realize how crazy evolution really is!
The people that know the most about those things hold evolution as truth...sorry. Show nested quote +
There are so many other reasons but I dont have the time to post them all.
If you have any responses, questions, comments, etc then please feel free to ask tell or whatever.
challenge me i need some practice arguments.
Open your eyes people! Evolution from one species to another is easily destroyed by basic scientific principles.
[end]
To the last line: Perhaps if you only have a high school freshman's understanding of those 'basic scientific principles', it may seem 'destroyed', but once you start to actually study them you realize that evolution is the only theory in existence that supports all of them. Edit: I can let somebody else handle the abiogenesis part, as I don't understand it yet as fully as I would like to.
i did already
|
On May 21 2009 01:37 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 01:34 Lemonwalrus wrote:On May 21 2009 01:20 Track wrote:
[begin]
Okay look,
this is all that needs to be said
The law of biogenesis
The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms of the same kind and not from nonliving matter.
that being said how could this happen?
and if "vertical evolution", or evolution from one species to another, were true why would we have the diversity in species and animals we have today? wouldnt there just be one superanimal that could survive anything? why would this evolve into us... and a gorilla, whats the point when evolving into a human would be the best option? Evolving into a human isn't always the best option. Species evolve traits that prove useful to individuals within the species enough to make them more likely to survive to breeding age. If a species of bird feeds primarily on nuts with a tough shell, the individuals with the strongest beaks/muscles powering those beaks will 1. waste less energy cracking them open and 2. be able to eat some nuts that the others just can't crack, and therefore be more likely to survive. As time progresses, the longer surviving tough-beaked birds will pass on their tough beaks while the weaker beaked ones will die out. Tada, evolution. However, just because these beaks are good for the nut-eating birds, doesn't mean they are good for all species of birds. Birds that eat insects will need an entirely different beak setup, so not every species of bird will need to develop tough beaks, and for some species it would even be detrimental. Tada, diversification.
this type of speculation of evolution is crazy.
This theory would require an entire species, or at least one male and one female, to evolve into the exact same thing at relatively the same time.
Evolution is a SLOW process. It isn't like some thursday millions of years ago the birds in the above example decided they should all have tougher beaks. Good traits get passed on more frequently than bad traits (due to survival rates) and when you take those changes and throw in millions of years, you see species evolution.
If you know anything about the sheer complexity of DNA, atoms, or any other single organ of the body then you should easily realize how crazy evolution really is!
The people that know the most about those things hold evolution as truth...sorry.
There are so many other reasons but I dont have the time to post them all.
If you have any responses, questions, comments, etc then please feel free to ask tell or whatever.
challenge me i need some practice arguments.
Open your eyes people! Evolution from one species to another is easily destroyed by basic scientific principles.
[end]
To the last line: Perhaps if you only have a high school freshman's understanding of those 'basic scientific principles', it may seem 'destroyed', but once you start to actually study them you realize that evolution is the only theory in existence that supports all of them. Edit: I can let somebody else handle the abiogenesis part, as I don't understand it yet as fully as I would like to. i did already
Thanks. 
Edit: When I started writing my first post nobody had responded yet...lemonwalrus types slloooooowwwwww.
|
Consider that things don't have to be exactly perfect for mating to work. Donkeys can mate with horses and you get a mule, for instance.
Humans even have different DNA depending on their location. Africans are typically black from hundreds or thousands of years of living in an environment with very little shade, and have adapted to it by having skin with much better protection than white people do. The natives of northern canada/alaska typically have an easier time gaining weight than someone in, say, Mexico, in order to retain heat.
DNA just has to be somewhere close in order for mating to be successful, and it takes thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years for evolution to make such a significant impact on a species that it can no longer mate with its ancestral link. Meanwhile, the maximum life of animal organisms is a couple of hundred years (sea turtles/certain birds), and all of them, including us, are pre-programmed to mate like crazy.
It's not just possible, it's probable that humans and gorillas share a common ancestor, and as one got smaller and stood up straight, the other got bigger and much, much stronger.
|
Out of curiosity, what age/schooling is this guy?
If I would have to guess, I would say High School Junior that thinks he knows already what others spend years in college to learn...or he is in college but in a religious school or is an english major or something that thinks he understands biology.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
This theory would require an entire species, or at least one male and one female, to evolve into the exact same thing at relatively the same time.
If you know anything about the sheer complexity of DNA, atoms, or any other single organ of the body then you should easily realize how crazy evolution really is!
marsupials and placental mammals evolved separately in different environments to produce similar species in a nearly exact time frame
BOOM
DESTROYED
COME BACK WHEN YOU HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION BOYAAAAAAAAA
|
Its quite obvious that a superanimal doesn't exist, because most 'features' come with trade-offs, for example size. Plus a lot of species require others to live, every carnivore for example.
And as far as I see, that was the only actual point he made, so *yawn* try harder.
|
Argument's been refuted.
BYAH!
|
Tell your friend to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
If he wants practice arguing, just tell him to take Philosophy 101. If he takes any kind of debate extra curricular activity, he's pretty much doomed to be a moron.
|
Besides, if every living thing evolved into a human...what would we fucking eat?
We would have to be photosynthetic carnivores that both mated with and ate the same species, not to mention we would have to evolve the ability to create all of the molecules necessary for life that we currently leave to bacteria.
|
I appreciate it guys. Well done!
|
all life on this planet was given to it by the others. call them gods or aliens or anunaki or whatever. evolution is the "science" that the eugenicist elites force feed you. the masses are just as dogmatic about their beloved science as they ever were about religion.
|
On May 21 2009 02:16 omninmo wrote:
all life on this planet was given to it by the others. call them gods or aliens or anunaki or whatever. evolution is the "science" that the eugenicist elites force feed you. the masses are just as dogmatic about their beloved science as they ever were about religion.
Then who created the gods/aliens/anunaki?
You haven't explained anything, just put another step into the process and then felt smug because you aren't one of the 'masses'. I'm guessing you haven't heard of or don't care about occam's razor, but it is ok because nobody with half a brain cares about what you or your kind say anyways. You are just light entertainment to the scientific community they enjoy between learning the truth and using it to save your life/make it better.
|
Evolution is just a gene that didnt copy itself well, and ended up giving its host different traits, most of the time theyre bad for its enviroment so the hosts die, but then a very rare one gives them good traits, so they survive, reproduce and thus pass on those genes, its not like evolution comes from a necessity, its just chance.
And scientists have created molecules, 'life', by creating an enviroment similar to what is thought to the one at the beginning of life on Earth, with the same nonliving elements and stuff.
|
On May 21 2009 02:19 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 02:16 omninmo wrote:
all life on this planet was given to it by the others. call them gods or aliens or anunaki or whatever. evolution is the "science" that the eugenicist elites force feed you. the masses are just as dogmatic about their beloved science as they ever were about religion. Then who created the gods/aliens/anunaki? You haven't explained anything, just put another step into the process and then felt smug because you aren't one of the 'masses'. I'm guessing you haven't heard of or don't care about occam's razor, but it is ok because nobody with half a brain cares about what you or your kind say anyways. You are just light entertainment to the scientific community they enjoy between learning the truth and using it to save your life/make it better.
science is useful only insofar as it serves life. science has use. it is the most useful. but it is only useful in amplifying our senses to make measurement easier. science cannot explain the world. it can only measure it. science doesnt lie but scientists do. the fact that we try to account for the most dynamic process on our planet with one neat "theory" says more about our species than any previous or future ones. the theory of evolution has more to do with human psychology than biology. i wasnt trying to explain anything. i was merely trolling because those who know don't speak and those who speak don't know.
best of luck to all those who would try to catch evolution in the act. "proving" such theories is of anecdotal significance at best. i think some king back in the day had some lackeys... they used "science" to prove a flat earth, witches, plague coming from masturbation, angels, etc.
|
Creatures don't evolve. They either merge or morph and outrange you, eventually.
|
I think you're genuinely just dumb. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with psychology. It's just currently the most plausible and useful explanation for what it's trying to describe. We make and rely on theories constantly in our daily lives. You theorize everyone you meet is another living thing and not a machine because there's no reason to believe otherwise, and tonnes of reasons to believe it.
Saying we keep finding fossils of humanoid like creatures, but who aren't exactly human is because we evolved is useful. Not saying anything about it because we can't say anything for sure is just primitive.
|
On May 21 2009 02:28 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 02:19 Lemonwalrus wrote:On May 21 2009 02:16 omninmo wrote:
all life on this planet was given to it by the others. call them gods or aliens or anunaki or whatever. evolution is the "science" that the eugenicist elites force feed you. the masses are just as dogmatic about their beloved science as they ever were about religion. Then who created the gods/aliens/anunaki? You haven't explained anything, just put another step into the process and then felt smug because you aren't one of the 'masses'. I'm guessing you haven't heard of or don't care about occam's razor, but it is ok because nobody with half a brain cares about what you or your kind say anyways. You are just light entertainment to the scientific community they enjoy between learning the truth and using it to save your life/make it better. science has use. it is the most useful. but it is only useful in amplifying our senses to make measurement easier. science cannot explain the world. it can only measure it. science doesnt lie but scientists do. the fact that we try to account for the most dynamic process on our planet with one neat "theory" says more about our species than any previous or future ones. the theory of evolution has more to do with human psychology than biology. i wasnt trying to explain anything. i was merely trolling because those who know don't speak and those who speak don't know.
'One neat theory.'
What do you think evolutionary biologists study in graduate school. You think they go in one day and are told the definition of evolution and then that's it? No, if is not 'one neat theory', it is a very complex explanation of what occurs in biology. However dumb people boil it down to a straw man argument that they then attack with their high school education and proclaim themselves the victor because 'science cannot explain the world, only measure it.' I suppose we developed computers just by measuring? No, we can explain the specific components and the electrical science going on inside. Your worldview is pathetic. I'll let you go back to thinking you know everything though.
|
best of luck to all those who would try to catch evolution in the act. "proving" such theories is of anecdotal significance at best. i think some king back in the day had some lackeys... they used "science" to prove a flat earth, witches, plague coming from masturbation, angels, etc.
Wow hahaha. Okay. So one person says 'hey look, we found a tonne of fossils, and they look like they slowly get more and more like us... Maybe we're a part of this chain.' You say 'No. I don't know how they got there, or have a better explanation, but just no.'
You can't really compare science and pseudo-science and expect anyone to take you seriously either. Claiming someone is a witch because they have a mole is nothing like claiming something might be evolved from something else because they complete a very logical chain.
|
This theory would require an entire species, or at least one male and one female, to evolve into the exact same thing at relatively the same time.
Thank you for the laughs. Your understanding of what evolution says is too limited for this to be worthwhile, you need to start reading some basic textbooks to understand what it is you're arguing against.
|
On May 21 2009 02:34 Chef wrote:
I think you're genuinely just dumb. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with psychology. It's just currently the most plausible and useful explanation for what it's trying to describe. We make and rely on theories constantly in our daily lives. You theorize everyone you meet is another living thing and not a machine because there's no reason to believe otherwise, and tonnes of reasons to believe it.
Saying we keep finding fossils of humanoid like creatures, but who aren't exactly human is because we evolved is useful. Not saying anything about it because we can't say anything for sure is just primitive.
im not talking about your psych 101 class joey. i am talking about psychological causes. what does the Ida do for us? great, so now we have PROOOOOVED that darwin was "right". now what?
all the problems are still there. you think the opposition to evolution will be this and be like, "oh, well what were we thinking? here's the proof and i cant argue with that". science relies on faith just as much as faith relies on fear.
why you guys being so defensive? can you not imagine a world without grandma lucy?
On May 21 2009 02:39 Lemonwalrus wrote:
your worldview is pathetic. I'll let you go back to thinking you know everything though.
misdirected hostility? i dont know anything man. well, i do know that you seem to be a really pious believer in evolutionary theories.
|
This thread.
This thread, man.
|
Here it goes:
What's really crazy isn't evolution, it's how the world is only 6,000 years old.
I agree that one species can't suddenly turn into another: I'm sure we all know the difference between Pokemon and the real world (pikachu --> RAICHU). As for hydra --> lurker or mutalisk --> guardian, that doesn't really happen unless you're thinking caterpillar --> butterfly.
Evolution is a gradual process, heavily influenced by the environment and works through natural selection. Sit in on an anthropology lecture on evolution or something, they're quite common in universities, unless of course, you visit institutions like Liberty University or something (http://www.liberty.edu/academics/index.cfm?PID=9821)
Another thing: Superspecies? It's unclear what you mean by that term. Wouldn't any species be considered a superspecies in its own environment since it is well-suited? Certain adaptations are advantageous and some or not, but that depends on the conditions involved. Consider the following situation:
A zergling with burrow is able to escape detection by a passing mnm force while a zergling without burrow is cornered and killed. Assuming that all zerglings can mate and reproduce, the successful ones that can burrow will multiply and the majority population of zerglings will possess this trait (burrow).
This is also a good time to note that populations evolve, not individuals.
Now, consider the modification: the terrans have a sci vessel following them around and they are able to kill the burrowed zerglings (assume that they're always burrowed), while they are killing these burrowed zerglings, the ones that can't burrow are able to run away. Thus the population composition starts shifting to more zerglings that can't burrow.
There's also certain trade-offs as mentioned earlier in the thread. In a drier environment where food is scarce, birds (think Darwin's finches, I can't find any starcraft references for this one). The finches have to resort to less ideal resources such as bigger seeds with harder shells (small seeds are ideal because they're easy to crack and eat --> expend less energy eating them). Finches with bigger beaks can crack open the shells and so they can be successful in that environment: they reproduce and there are more birds with bigger beaks. Of course, you might wonder why it is super-rare to find a bird with a super massive beak (a superanimal if you will, as per the observation that you only find finches with a maximum sized beak). Certain anomalies that arise spontaneously (due to diverse gene pools, mutations, etc.) that do yield finches with these supermassive beaks would be eliminated from the population because their beaks may cost alot of energy to maintain or they're too heavy: there's some disadvantage with larger beaks but there are advantages to the larger beaks in the drier environment over smaller beaks.
For a non-biological expample: traits can also be behaviors. Think of them as like strategies in starcraft. Good strategies that have been developed are "replicated" in a sense that other gamers start adopting their build orders, timings, etc. When the "environment" changes such as new counter-strategies/timings, etc. are found, the previous strategy becomes less viable and becomes used less and less.
I tried making this as relevant to tl.net, entertaining, and educational as possible. Thanks for reading.
|
On May 21 2009 02:32 Boonbag wrote:
Creatures don't evolve. They either merge or morph and outrange you, eventually.
|
You must be trolling lol.
Hereditary traits and genetic mutations in human beings are enough for me to believe in evolution, let alone all the fossils that strongly suggest it's true. I'm not saying it's infallible and there might be another cause... But there's nothing to suggest it yet.
|
On May 21 2009 02:49 koreasilver wrote:
This thread.
This thread, man.
i was waiting for this post. i think my work here is done.
|
MORPH AND OUTRANGE YOU.
edit: holy lol, you talk about the anunaki.
Wait, Tristan, is that you?
|
|
|
MORPH AND HIDE IN A WHOLE UNTIL YOU ARE JUST ABOVE ME AND THEN HIT 'S'.
|
|
|
|
|
Just tell him to read Darwin... or even some basic research on 'evolution' on wikipedia. Why waste our time explaining something so basic that have been detailed so many times... You and your 'friend' are some really lazy bums. ¬¬
|
Why don't we just get it over with become 4teamliquid-chan? -.-
|
|
|
On May 21 2009 02:54 Chef wrote:
You must be trolling lol.
Hereditary traits and genetic mutations in human beings are enough for me to believe in evolution, let alone all the fossils that strongly suggest it's true. I'm not saying it's infallible and there might be another cause... But there's nothing to suggest it yet.
dude, im just trying to get you to see the absurdity of the statement "i believe in evolution". there is no doubt that the human brain was not always this advanced. there is no doubt that the information carried by our sperm is the way it is based on our parents and theirs. but when we start trying to systematize it. we lose the spirit of it all. you cant put a framework on everything. you'll end up living in a museum.
|
Lets worship the anunaki instead, amirite.
|
On May 21 2009 03:01 koreasilver wrote:
HOLE, BRO.
NAH, I HIDE EVERYWHERE YO.
|
Biology knowledge trumps Psychology knowledge when talking about evolution. Sorry.
I'm gonna go pray to Charles Darwin and sacrifice a few endangered species before I have to go to work.
|
On May 21 2009 03:12 koreasilver wrote:
Lets worship the anunaki instead, amirite.
who said anything about worshiping anything. alas, my words fail to penetrate the cloud of sarcasm and apathy. oh well i will try this in newspeak :
primate pwnage < non dogmatic wombo combo
On May 21 2009 03:19 Lemonwalrus wrote:
Biology knowledge trumps Psychology knowledge when talking about evolution. Sorry.
I'm gonna go pray to Charles Darwin and sacrifice a few endangered species before I have to go to work.
apoloy is unnecessary. but you would do well to lose the sarcasm. that is a sign of frustration.
the gentleman says that regarding evolution: bioknow > psyknow
yea. that is if you are trying to explain evolution. i am trying to explain why evolution is a topic for discussion. that is a psyknow question which has nothing to do with bioknow.
|
I love TL.
Also for your friend. Go tell him to read Darwin's Evolution and stop watching Pokemon/Digimon
|
On May 21 2009 03:21 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 03:12 koreasilver wrote:
Lets worship the anunaki instead, amirite. that is if you are trying to explain evolution. i am trying to explain why evolution is a topic for discussion. Oh... you didn't explain that before ^^ Now you start to make a liiiitle bit of sense :p
|
On May 21 2009 03:21 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 03:12 koreasilver wrote:
Lets worship the anunaki instead, amirite. who said anything about worshiping anything. alas, my words fail to penetrate the cloud of sarcasm and apathy. oh well i will try this in newspeak : primate pwnage < non dogmatic wombo combo
Psst.
I was being sarcastic.
Beyond that anyway, how in the world does your belief that all life on this planet has originated from otherworldly beings have any more merit than anything that science puts forth as the truth? You talk about how the common mass are dogmatic fools that eat up whatever the scientific elite give them, but you put your own completely and hilariously unsubstantiated idea as the "truth" and look down upon those that have a different view of the world.
You are just another one of the common fools that live on this world.
|
On May 21 2009 03:07 Chef wrote:
Why don't we just get it over with become 4teamliquid-chan? -.-
/b/logs
|
On May 21 2009 03:29 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 03:21 omninmo wrote:On May 21 2009 03:12 koreasilver wrote:
Lets worship the anunaki instead, amirite. who said anything about worshiping anything. alas, my words fail to penetrate the cloud of sarcasm and apathy. oh well i will try this in newspeak : primate pwnage < non dogmatic wombo combo Psst. I was being sarcastic.Beyond that anyway, how in the world does your belief that all life on this planet has originated from otherworldly beings have any more merit than anything that science puts forth as the truth? You talk about how the common mass are dogmatic fools that eat up whatever the scientific elite give them, but you put your own completely hilariously unsubstantiated idea as the "truth" and look down upon those that have a different view of the world. You are just another one of the common fools that live on this world.
unless the universe started at ground zero Earth then i think me beliefs hold much merit. we are stardust man. that fossil they found... it is stardust. evolution is a great coffee table discussion. but it is honestly one of the most arrogant suppositions that man has come up with. i do not deny the validity of its claims but i do deny the benefit it offers. i deny the need for evolution. it is the wrong way for us to proceed. and positing "evolution" just begs so many other questions.
the fit do not survive because they are fit. they survive because they can adapt. because they have spirit and strong will. success is not passively biological. rather, it is active will.
|
Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 01:24 Caller wrote:
Again, your friend's argument that the sudden change of a male and a female of a given type to turn into a different species demonstrates ignorance of how it works. Like I said, the various changes accumulate in these different variations of the same species until they become no longer able to reproduce with the original parent's type to produce a viable child. However, keep in mind that organisms have multiple offspring, and due to the processes of crossing over and random mutation, the offspring will be different from each other. But these changes are gradual-a gorilla didn't give birth to a baby. This is also expected by entropy[sic]. Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 01:34 Lemonwalrus wrote:
this type of speculation of evolution is crazy.
This theory would require an entire species, or at least one male and one female, to evolve into the exact same thing at relatively the same time.
Evolution is a SLOW process. Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 01:41 VorcePA wrote:
Consider that things don't have to be exactly perfect for mating to work. Donkeys can mate with horses and you get a mule, for instance.
Humans even have different DNA depending on their location. Africans are typically black from hundreds or thousands of years of living in an environment with very little shade, and have adapted to it by having skin with much better protection than white people do. The natives of northern canada/alaska typically have an easier time gaining weight than someone in, say, Mexico, in order to retain heat.
DNA just has to be somewhere close in order for mating to be successful, and it takes thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years for evolution to make such a significant impact on a species that it can no longer mate with its ancestral link. Meanwhile, the maximum life of animal organisms is a couple of hundred years (sea turtles/certain birds), and all of them, including us, are pre-programmed to mate like crazy.
It's not just possible, it's probable that humans and gorillas share a common ancestor, and as one got smaller and stood up straight, the other got bigger and much, much stronger.
I don't understand this argument. The question was, "If different species cannot breed with one another, how does evolution explain the creation of species: obviously a mutation that results in inability to breed with existing species will not be selected for?" The response was, "Evolution proceeds in gradual stages, and the ability to interbreed with the original species is lost long after the emergent species is on its way."
Here's what I don't understand: ignore all the years before and after--let's focus on the precise point where ability to interbreed is lost. I.e. the parents can breed with species X and subspecies Y, but the child(ren) can only breed with species Y. Logically, in going between "able-to-breed" and "unable-to-interbreed" such a point must be reached.
This would imply that it is biologically possible to have a situation where species Z (the intermediate stage) can breed with species X and with species Y, but X and Y cannot breed with each other (the relation is not transitive, if you like). Do we have any evidence that such a thing is possible? Has anything like that ever been observed? If not, the objection seems to have been insufficiently addressed.
As far as I can see, macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) is by nature a theory for which it is hard to adduce firm evidence. Sure, you can point to the fossil record, but after all, what does that show? Simply that species once existed (and have since died out) that were more or less similar to us. But you don't need fossils to show that: just look at all of the living creatures in the world that are very similar to each other--some of them can even interbreed. At core, macroevolution's principle motivation remains what it always was: to explain the origin of species. (Personally I feel that trying to explain the origin of species independently of the origin of anything else is as pointless as trying to find infinity by adding one to the biggest number that you can think of.)
|
i think many people confuse evolution with adaptation(such as change in enviornment, well when its called birds fly south, bears hibernate they dont evolve they adapt), and mutation with change (about 100 percent of mutations are negative, would you like to be expose to enoromous amounts of radiation and like to see the postive mutations), and also forget that evolution does not and never will explain how life began... In my opnion there is a discussion/debate on the topic there is no end all be all authority on this matter and its obvious there is a difference of opnion, and no there is no science to prove the theory of evolution but there is much science to disapprove it. and yes people use generalizations and strawman arguments because evolutionist are constantly changing the theory.. darwin could not have imagined the complexity of a cell. please be a proponent of your on ideas and dont be lead by these lies i use to believe in evolution as well because it is what we are taught but everything we are taught is killing us, i dont get the anger aswell, i believe it just shows about how much you care about what other people think and are mindless blind fool. question everything, because its obvious some of us are still sleeping and having waking up to the reality of this world and how much we have failed..
|
On May 21 2009 03:44 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 03:29 koreasilver wrote:On May 21 2009 03:21 omninmo wrote:On May 21 2009 03:12 koreasilver wrote:
Lets worship the anunaki instead, amirite. who said anything about worshiping anything. alas, my words fail to penetrate the cloud of sarcasm and apathy. oh well i will try this in newspeak : primate pwnage < non dogmatic wombo combo Psst. I was being sarcastic.Beyond that anyway, how in the world does your belief that all life on this planet has originated from otherworldly beings have any more merit than anything that science puts forth as the truth? You talk about how the common mass are dogmatic fools that eat up whatever the scientific elite give them, but you put your own completely hilariously unsubstantiated idea as the "truth" and look down upon those that have a different view of the world. You are just another one of the common fools that live on this world. unless the universe started at ground zero Earth then i think me beliefs hold much merit. we are stardust man. that fossil they found... it is stardust. evolution is a great coffee table discussion. but it is honestly one of the most arrogant suppositions that man has come up with. i do not deny the validity of its claims but i do deny the benefit it offers. i deny the need for evolution. it is the wrong way for us to proceed. the fit do not survive because they are fit. they survive because they can adapt. because they have spirit and strong will. success is not passively biological. rather, it is active will.
If we're going to talk about evolution, then actually discuss the flaws of the theories that you find instead of your worthless pseudo-intellect shit that any half-read adolescent can spew.
You didn't address anything in this post.
|
On May 21 2009 03:53 Weaponx3 wrote:
i think many people confuse evolution with adaptation(such as change in enviornment, well when its called birds fly south, bears hibernate they dont evolve they adapt), and mutation with change (about 100 percent of mutations are negative, would you like to be expose to enoromous amounts of radiation and like to see the postive mutations), and also forget that evolution does not and never will explain how life began... In my opnion there is a discussion/debate on the topic there is no end all be all authority on this matter and its obvious there is a difference of opnion, and no there is no science to prove the theory of evolution but there is much science to disapprove it. and yes people use generalizations and strawman arguments because evolutionist are constantly changing the theory.. darwin could not have imagined the complexity of a cell. please be a proponent of your on ideas and dont be lead by these lies i use to believe in evolution as well because it is what we are taught but everything we are taught is killing us, i dont get the anger aswell, i believe it just shows about how much you care about what other people think and are mindless blind fool. question everything, because its obvious some of us are still sleeping and having waking up to the reality of this world and how much we have failed..
sunlight breaks through the canopy. dawning of a new day. a fog is lifted. the obelisk continues on its voyage.
|
인터넷에 나오는 스타 게이머들
왠지 다 바보갓다
시발, 토론을 못하니까 씨를쓰고 자빠졌어?
너 갔은 놈들때문에 새상 말쎄다.
|
|
|
omninmo, you are missing something really important here. It is logically impossible to prove a theory as 'truth', we can prove something is false, but never that something else is true. That is science 101. So for practical reasons we assume as 'truth' something that fits our practical needs. It's as simple as that.
Newton's gravity theory that mass attracts mass, F=m.a, earth's gravity at the surface is approximately 9.8m/s².. etc. That is all wrong and have been proven wrong a long long time ago. But engineers still use that today. Why? It's very simple. It fits our practical needs: You want o build a building that stands still and doesn't fall down -> you assume that earth's gravity is 9.8 -> building doesn't fall down -> mission accomplished. But if you are trying to calculate how subatomic particles behave to build a Large Hadron Collider you're gonna scrap much of what Newton said.
Of course what Darwin said a century ago isn't 100% accurate, nothing is. Nothing will ever be. That is the nature of science. But if it fits whatever practical needs that you need that theory for. Than it is 'true' for your specific needs.
|
Species evolve and apapt according to climate and natural selection, so many trees of evolvants(?) could come from one species and differing environments. BYAH!
250th
|
I'm staying out of here because I will become angry with omninmo.
|
On May 21 2009 02:51 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 02:32 Boonbag wrote:
Creatures don't evolve. They either merge or morph and outrange you, eventually.
Thread was complete at this post.
|
It is energetically inefficient to become a supermegacreature that can do everything. You'll be totally outcompeted by "specialists".
|
Shouldnt this thread be finished after the 1st reply?
|
The law of biogenesis
The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms of the same kind and not from nonliving matter.
that being said how could this happen?
Actually, it's pretty easy. However, before we can begin, we have to define what "life" is.
For the purposes of the kind of life that could be built from non-living materials, life should be defined as something along these lines:
1: A collection of molecules that can maintain homeostasis to some degree. That is, it can keep the molecules it wants within some perimeter, and the molecules that it doesn't want to enter the area can generally not do so.
2: A collection of molecules that can ingest other molecules and use those molecules to perform some function.
3: A collection of molecules that can self-replicate to a reasonable degree.
What does it take to create this? According to the RNA World hypothesis, not very much.
The RNA World hypothesis suggests that live began as a system of simple fatty acids and RNAs.
RNA has the ability to catalyze processes much like proteins. And RNA can even catalyze RNA replication via a template. Much like protein synthesis, the catalytic RNA strand would sit on top of the template and help get other nucleic acids to attack to their complimentary positions on the strand. Even better, RNA strands can self-polymerize in a sloppier form of replication. So the catalyst strand can produce its template strand, which would allow the catalyst strand to catalyze its own replication.
Now, all you need is a membrane.
That's where the fatty acids come in. Fatty acids in water naturally form tiny clumps called micelles that can contain molecules. And it turns out that fatty acid micelles would permit free ribonucleic acids to enter and leave the clump, but any RNA strand bigger than a couple of base pairs would be trapped inside and/or prevented from leaving.
Even more interesting, fatty acid micelles are capable of adding other fatty acids to their membrane, either by ingesting free-floating molecules or by ingesting other micelles and their contents. If they add too much to the membrane, then they will eventually divide into two or more micelles. The contents of the mycelles are preserved in the division.
So the stage is set. If one of these RNA synthesis catalizers gets caught in the formation of a micell, that RNA strand will still be able to produce more RNA strands from monomers. However, it would be in a protected environment, so it wouldn't be catalyzing the creation of arbitrary RNA strands; it would only be able to catalyze the strands in the mycell. A catalyzer and the catalyzer-template strand in a mycell would cause the production of a lot (relatively speaking) of catalyzers within that mycell.
This synthesis is error-prone, and thus is now susceptible to evolution: random mutation and natural selection. A catalyzer might create a mutated copy of itself that works better. The better-working catalyzers will be more effective at producing copies of themselves, so they will naturally out-compete the older catalyzers. A mutation that makes the catalyst work less effectively or not at all will simply create a "dead" mycell: one that has no catalyzed replication.
And the most interesting part is that there is actually a catalyst that catalyzes both the polymerization of RNA and the formation of fatty acids: Montmorillonite clay. So this particular clay could very well have been the kick-off point for the beginnings of life.
Now, there is no direct evidence yet that this is how life started (though the fact that RNA is involved in every part of protein synthesis today is highly suggestive). Indeed, there may never be; primitive cells would have eventually been out-competed by better, more effective cells, so none of them are left. And they were very small, so there wouldn't even be micro-fossils of them. Even if we were to replicate the natural formation of primitive cells via the above method, we wouldn't be sure that this is how our life started, only that it is one way life could have started.
and if "vertical evolution", or evolution from one species to another, were true why would we have the diversity in species and animals we have today? wouldnt there just be one superanimal that could survive anything? why would this evolve into us... and a gorilla, whats the point when evolving into a human would be the best option?
Because evolution isn't alive. It doesn't have a goal or an end-product. It isn't trying to do anything. Evolution is simply the outcome of what happens when you have a system that has:
1: Entities with phenotypic traits that can be passed on to offspring.
2: Random mutation of those traits that can create new phenotypes.
3: An environmental pressure that can give advantages or disadvantages to phenotypic traits.
Evolution is the inevitable result of what happens when these things come together. Evolution doesn't want things.
best of luck to all those who would try to catch evolution in the act.
It's already happened. Here is a list of observed instances of speciation. Evolution has happened both in the lab and out of it.
It's real.
What's really crazy isn't evolution, it's how the world is only 6,000 years old.
Want to know how crazy that is? Check out this video. Watch it all the way to the end. It's absolutely hilarious and awesome.
This would imply that it is biologically possible to have a situation where species Z (the intermediate stage) can breed with species X and with species Y, but X and Y cannot breed with each other (the relation is not transitive, if you like). Do we have any evidence that such a thing is possible? Has anything like that ever been observed?
Yes. It's called a Ring species, and it has been observed. It also somewhat confounds the definition of "species", due to some members of the population being unable to produce viable offspring with other members of the population.
Shouldnt this thread be finished after the 1st reply?
No. People need better education about evolution (lack of this is why so many in public doubt it), so reasonable questions/answers can be fielded.
|
You're wasting your time.
|
Nice post, NicolBolas. Hadn't heard that theory before.
|
On May 21 2009 05:34 koreasilver wrote:
You're wasting your time.
Yes, you are!
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
As poorly presented ur dilema I "think" I did understand probably what u were trying to get at; and since we are in the realm of hypothesis and dreams the answer to ur dilemma "might be":
- there "probably" was life even way before evolution itself, call it the first era of open source when it comes to genetic information.
- at one point in the history of life in our planet among the original life cells, a random mutation made one individual life form more "selfish" with the transmission of its own genetic material and at the same time gave it greater stability in its particular environment, an evolutionary advantage and thus the birth of evolution.. u could call it metaphorically speaking, a "gene of selfishness".. - it probably was an improvement in its cell wall/membrane.
- prior to this life form, early life forms probably swapped genetic material amongst themselves with little restrictions and there was no single species, but many forms that swapped genetic information constantly amongst themselves..
- now comes a new life form, humans, with the ability to pick and chose genes and insert them into other current lifeforms, its own code and even in some extinct species; thus A NEW ERA OF OPEN SOURCE IS UPON US, albeit not as open as the first one, but this time with "some" intelligence behind it, not just random trial and error..
- I am kind of looking forward to green photosynthetic women with exalted libidos and that don't need to be fed (much). + Show Spoiler +
gl! gg
|
His response to my collective response to him:
Okay kdub,
There has NEVER been any successful trials in getting life from non life. Maybe aminos from smaller cells, but not entirely inorganic matter. It would hit a major news source considering the vast majority of scientists want information out about the hypothesis of evolution.
To begin with Id like to say that you have no idea how much I know about evolution, so dont call me stupid or ignorant which is what youre jabbing at.
A question I also have is have they ever formed those amino acids into proteins and then into DNA, etc.. and They havent.... anyway
This idea that there is room for millions of years for these kinds of changes to happen is bogus.
If you didnt know it, the sun decreases in diameter by 5 feet every day, if you trace that back a million years, the earth wouldnt even exist.
Another disproof of evolution is that if you follow the population growth of humans (or their primate ancestors that you believe in) over just a one million year period factoring in death disease war disasters etc and say that every couple has 2.4 children (an average I know you cant have .4 of a person: also this is a very generous number considering it is much bigger today than that) then there would be 10^5000 people on the earth right now, which there arent. Also this is insane to say considering that the number of people that can fit in the universe is only 10^100 people.
^ this means there is not enough time for evolution to occur, but if there was then heres something else....
This next paragraph is probably the easiest to understand. For anyone who wants clear cut proof.
To combat your argument that some creature would evolve into me and some other animal because of food is crazy! If the creature was not originally able to eat that hard nut or something then it would just go eat something else... If it couldnt eat that food and it had plenty of other food sources, why change just for that one. If that were the only food available at that time then the creature wouldnt have millions of years to ADAPT to be able to eat it, it would die.
So, using your own theory it would be better for that animal to not evolve at all rather than change to something that can eat that nut.
Another big thing to think about is that if the "original organism" were placed in each of these environments and the animal changes into the best fit for each of those areas, wouldnt there be very little overlap of animal species rather than some animals live in many places all over the world and overlap with thousands of other animals.
Also I would like to say that you are the only one in this convesation that is making overgeneralizations. Like you assume that something happened to cause the first clump of matter. You also assume that there are thousands of "transitional lifeforms" out there that havent been discovered yet.
Alright just one more thing, regarding entropy, entropy does not propose that this would happen. For anyone who doesnt know, entropy is, put simply, the fact that energy is constantly changing to a less usable form of energy. No organization can be formed out of this disorganization.
According to you (KW), and your idea entropy, then is would be plausible that if we boxed in a junkyard and proceeded to set off charges of dynamite or some other form of energy that eventually something would be formed, whether it be a car or even a motorcycle, it just cant happen. If I tried to tell you that I found this laptop on a beach and since there were no other humans or creator there, then it mustve always been there, you would laugh in my face.
[end]
Debunk away!
|
There has NEVER been any successful trials in getting life from non life. Maybe aminos from smaller cells, but not entirely inorganic matter.
"Organic matter" means material that contains carbon. Outside of fusion and fission, neither of which are directly involved in creating life, you cannot create organic matter from inorganic matter. You had to get the carbon from somewhere.
Further, that there have been no successful human trials in creating life from simple molecules is meaningless. Did fission not exist until we detonated the atomic bomb? Just because we have not replicated something ourselves (yet) doesn't mean it didn't happen, just as much as creating life from simple molecules does not mean that life developed that way (it only means it could have).
If you didnt know it, the sun decreases in diameter by 5 feet every day, if you trace that back a million years, the earth wouldnt even exist.
Assuming you're correct about the sun decreasing in diameter 5 feet per day, that still doesn't show that the sun has always been doing so.
Another disproof of evolution is that if you follow the population growth of humans (or their primate ancestors that you believe in) over just a one million year period factoring in death disease war disasters etc and say that every couple has 2.4 children (an average I know you cant have .4 of a person: also this is a very generous number considering it is much bigger today than that) then there would be 10^5000 people on the earth right now, which there arent. Also this is insane to say considering that the number of people that can fit in the universe is only 10^100 people.
It is a well-known fact that if a population of any creature outstrips the local environment's ability to sustain that population, then the population will shrink to a sustainable size. AKA: people will starve.
Modern society has given us a lot of benefits. The most important being that we never have had to worry about where food comes from. This has not been the case in the past. Most tribal cultures were doing good to sustain zero population growth.
If the creature was not originally able to eat that hard nut or something then it would just go eat something else... If it couldnt eat that food and it had plenty of other food sources, why change just for that one. If that were the only food available at that time then the creature wouldnt have millions of years to ADAPT to be able to eat it, it would die.
This is a common misunderstanding of evolution.
If you put a population in an environment that contains only food that no members of that population can eat, then yes, they will all die. However, you'd have a hard time doing that, as animals are rather more robust than that. Live isn't as binary as "can't eat this/can eat that" would suggest.
In the real world, evolution works something like this. You have a population of herbivores, and there is plentiful plant food available. Then, an environmental pressure comes along. Some of the preferred plant food is no longer available. There is some plant food left, but it's harder to digest.
So, since this is a real population rather than a fictional one, this population has reasonable genetic diversity. Some members of that population will be better able to digest the tougher food than others. These species will be selected for. However, since this isn't a static environment with only two things in it, there are other possibilities. Some members of that population will have forelimbs or hindlimbs that are better at digging than others. This could allow them to eat roots/carrots/etc, which are easier to digest than the easier-to-reach vegetation. Some members of that population may have tools (horns, claws, etc) that would allow them to start hunting for food to supplement their diet.
Right there are 3 biological niches formed by one environmental change. And note that the initial trigger mutations for these niches are already there. That's why genetic diversity is so important in a population; it prevents one thing from coming in and killing everyone.
But evolution doesn't stop just because you've put things into niches. Any new genetic diversity that comes up that helps the population survive in its environment will have similar effects.
If the three niches are in geographically distinct areas, then the eventual results of successive genetic changes between the populations will cause them to speciate. At first, the two populations will be able to interbreed. After some time, they can interbreed with difficulty. Then interbreed creating non-viable offspring, and then finally they'll be entirely incompatible with one another.
Keeping the populations separate is what is necessary for speciation between current populations.
You also assume that there are thousands of "transitional lifeforms" out there that havent been discovered yet.
Oh God, not the "no transitional forms" thing again. Take this specimen for example. This is just one of thousands of transitional forms that have been found. Here and here are two videos showing many of these transitional forms.
For anyone who doesnt know, entropy is, put simply, the fact that energy is constantly changing to a less usable form of energy.
That is easily the worst bastardization of "entropy" I have ever heard. For the purposes of this conversation, "Entropy" applies to a thermodynamic universe. A thermodynamic universe is a set of stuff that you define as the "system," and everything else, which are the "surroundings."
Entropy is the property of this thermodynamic universe that says that, over time the pressure, temperature, and density differences between the system and the surroundings will equalize. Entropy does not mean that you can't have a temperature gradient; it only means that this gradient cannot last forever. It can last days, weeks, months, years, centuries, millennia, and much much longer, but eventually there will be no gradient between the system and surroundings.
|
On May 21 2009 05:18 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +This would imply that it is biologically possible to have a situation where species Z (the intermediate stage) can breed with species X and with species Y, but X and Y cannot breed with each other (the relation is not transitive, if you like). Do we have any evidence that such a thing is possible? Has anything like that ever been observed? Yes. It's called a Ring species, and it has been observed. It also somewhat confounds the definition of "species", due to some members of the population being unable to produce viable offspring with other members of the population.
Well, that certainly answers my question. Thanks!On May 21 2009 08:41 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +For anyone who doesnt know, entropy is, put simply, the fact that energy is constantly changing to a less usable form of energy. That is easily the worst bastardization of "entropy" I have ever heard. For the purposes of this conversation, "Entropy" applies to a thermodynamic universe. A thermodynamic universe is a set of stuff that you define as the "system," and everything else, which are the "surroundings." Entropy is the property of this thermodynamic universe that says that, over time the pressure, temperature, and density differences between the system and the surroundings will equalize. Entropy does not mean that you can't have a temperature gradient; it only means that this gradient cannot last forever. It can last days, weeks, months, years, centuries, millennia, and much much longer, but eventually there will be no gradient between the system and surroundings.
Actually, the bit about entropy was in reply to Caller's original response on page 1 of this thread, where he attributed evolution to the principle of entropy, for no reason that I could discern. On May 21 2009 01:24 Caller wrote:
Entropy.
I win.
further clarification:
... various experimentation has demonstrated that it is possible to generate amino acids under primordial earth conditions-the basis for proteins and the beginnings of life. Entropy dictates that such chaos would eventually produce something.
... it's not that vertical evolution takes place, it's a tree. This is expected by entropy.
... these changes are gradual-a gorilla didn't give birth to a baby. This is also expected by entropy.
Q.E.D.
Considering that the processes dictated by entropy are very nearly the opposite of evolution, I was wondering whether caller had meant to use a different word or whether I had misunderstood his post. I just poked around Wikipedia a bit, though, and they have a whole article about the concept. It's called negative entropy, however, something that Caller's post failed to make clear...
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
- a small pointer: many times (not always) when you see the word "entropy" used in genetics and sometimes life, it will have another definition than that of the theory of thermodynamics, instead it will that of the information theory (since genetics studies in part the transmission and replication of genetic data) so one must pay attention to which "entropy" is being referred to..
|
On May 21 2009 07:36 Track wrote:
There has NEVER been any successful trials in getting life from non life. Maybe aminos from smaller cells, but not entirely inorganic matter. It would hit a major news source considering the vast majority of scientists want information out about the hypothesis of evolution.
Evolution is not about the origins of life. He's barking up the wrong tree.
If you didnt know it, the sun decreases in diameter by 5 feet every day,
That is incorrect, and unless he can provide a source for it I'd ignore it. You can't make scientific claims without providing evidence.
Another disproof of evolution is that if you follow the population growth of humans (or their primate ancestors that you believe in) over just a one million year period factoring in death disease war disasters etc and say that every couple has 2.4 children (an average I know you cant have .4 of a person: also this is a very generous number considering it is much bigger today than that) then there would be 10^5000 people on the earth right now, which there arent. Also this is insane to say considering that the number of people that can fit in the universe is only 10^100 people.
The exponential growth of the human population is a relatively recent occurrence, well documented in many historical demographic studies.
Did he watch the video pyrogenetix posted? It's a great overview of evolution and its claims.
|
[begin]
Okay look,
this is all that needs to be said
The law of biogenesis
The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms of the same kind and not from nonliving matter.
that being said how could this happen?
and if "vertical evolution", or evolution from one species to another, were true why would we have the diversity in species and animals we have today? wouldnt there just be one superanimal that could survive anything? why would this evolve into us... and a gorilla, whats the point when evolving into a human would be the best option?
this type of speculation of evolution is crazy.
This theory would require an entire species, or at least one male and one female, to evolve into the exact same thing at relatively the same time.
If you know anything about the sheer complexity of DNA, atoms, or any other single organ of the body then you should easily realize how crazy evolution really is!
There are so many other reasons but I dont have the time to post them all.
If you have any responses, questions, comments, etc then please feel free to ask tell or whatever.
challenge me i need some practice arguments.
Open your eyes people! Evolution from one species to another is easily destroyed by basic scientific principles.
[end]
The earth is not 1 averaged eco system. There are swamps, oceans, deserts, snow, etc. So perhaps one creature evolved into swamp area then adapted itself to live in the ocean, while the original stayed, and so on. Also, the earth itself has evolved in many forms, from no water-volcanic wasteland to complete ice and snow, to what it is now. Also the way the 'primordial ooze' for lack of a better term, created life is complicated. The first multicellular organisms on the earth afaik were mushrooms and fungus which lived on rocks. Who is to say just one organism formed? Perhaps 2 organisms formed and fought for the same rock to survive. Survival is the most primal of needs for any organism. Survival of the Fittest. Thus we begin the constant adaptation and creation of new life forms (which may or may not be a spin off the original life form(s).)
I'm assuming your friend is religious, probably christian. Tell him he should study the history of his own religion before he gets into other people's theories.
Jesus for example, didn't even exist. Yea I said it, he is fucking made up. Just like the easter bunny or the tooth fairy. Good place to start is the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There".
|
On May 21 2009 07:36 Track wrote:
This idea that there is room for millions of years for these kinds of changes to happen is bogus.
If you didnt know it, the sun decreases in diameter by 5 feet every day, if you trace that back a million years, the earth wouldnt even exist.
Maybe the sun decreases 5 feet every day NOW, but that doesn't mean it has always decreased at that speed.
If you see a car on the highway traveling 50mph, do you assume that that car always has been and always will be traveling at exactly 50mph?
I'm not really going to get into the rest of your post, because, I hate to be a dick, but you simply don't understand what you are talking about and refuse to actually critically read our responses. Evolution is real, get over it.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
Haha this is futile, I've had these exact arguments basically on another forum.
In summary:
Basic fallacies:
Abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated. The validity or lack thereof of 1 theory does not prove or disprove the other. Evolution only requires there is life, it's origin is irrelevant.
Entropy both thermodynamic and information, is a general universal trend. It is neither a hard rule, nor does it stop the amount of free energy/information in a local area. Eg by removing energy from 1 place and adding it to another, you can increase available energy in the second area while overall entropy remains the same or increases.
The sun shrinking/population growth rates: just bad/blind application of static analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_analysis#Satire:_safety_razors
It's like extrapolating yourself to A+ on iccup cos your like 10-0 D+
As everyone has already mentioned. Evolution is gradual change in a population, not an individual. It is, by definition, impossible for a single individual to 'evolve'.
|
The whole argument about finding a laptop on the beach is silly. Of course we would think it absurd, but we all know from where laptops come. Now imagine a world where laptops were naturally occurring objects, usually found at beaches. Finding a random laptop just sitting at a beach would not be odd at all but would be the norm.
|
For the record, this isn't ME saying this shit, for christ's sake. Read the OP.
|
These types of arguments are fairly well debated already.
Just send him to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html (pro-evolution)
vs.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ (anti-evolution)
That was easy.
I'm still fairly skeptical of abiogenesis though. Creation of amino acids is nothing, especially since amino acids decay very easily and very rapidly. Self replicating RNA is fine, except (1) how do you get those strands in the first place and (2) it doesn't explain anything beyond that. Molecular machinery is very complex.
|
United States37500 Posts
haha, those were some great posts, NicolBolas.
Elder dragon ftw. 
|
It's impressive the amount of people who discredit evolution theory simply because they're too arrogant to admit they cannot understand one specific case or another. So they rather believe that evolution must be wrong instead of themselves, just out of arrogance. You guys are a waste of the sun's energy. >(
|
A question I also have is have they ever formed those amino acids into proteins and then into DNA, etc.. and They havent.... anyway
DNA does not consist of aminoacids, but of a ribose-backbone (ribose = sugar) and nucleo-bases...
And Protein-Synthesis is possible nowadays...
|
Why can't there be a god who created evolution? Besides the common reference of the word evolution look at its easily seen use in diseases and flu virii, look at the evolution of man technologically, look at the evolution of science & math. They are constantly trying new things, and some obsolete others and we keep moving on and on.
So how is this completely absurd to think it would happen with all living things? Just because one ancient book says otherwise? Ever played the childrens' game telephone? You think that book is still gonna be accurate after 2000 years of telephone?
|
A better question is, what are the specific circumstances in which would disprove evolution?
|
On May 23 2009 08:42 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Why can't there be a god who created evolution? Besides the common reference of the word evolution look at its easily seen use in diseases and flu virii, look at the evolution of man technologically, look at the evolution of science & math. They are constantly trying new things, and some obsolete others and we keep moving on and on.
So how is this completely absurd to think it would happen with all living things? Just because one ancient book says otherwise? Ever played the childrens' game telephone? You think that book is still gonna be accurate after 2000 years of telephone? In case you didn't know, your theory have already existed for a long time. According to many people, if you don't take the bible literally (a "day" in the bible could mean "a long period of time" not "24 hours as we know it"), then it could actually fit into our modern scientific knowledge of the creation of the world and the species. The order that the bible says the world was created (separate earth from sky, then water, then animals etc) matches science (volcanos created atmosphere, then rains makes the oceans, from which life starts). Also even the order of some of the animals are similar afaik (fish -> reptiles -> birds -> men etc) in both the genesis and the modern evolution theory.
"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
Surprisingly enough, there are some people who believe that the "fruit of the tree of the science of good and evil" is not an "apple". But a metaphor for the root of self consciousness, from which when the first human beings experimented with, they got kicked out of that place where they had the same level as all animals. Sounds familiar?
|
On May 23 2009 13:54 VIB wrote:
In case you didn't know, your theory have already existed for a long time. According to many people, if you don't take the bible literally (a "day" in the bible could mean "a long period of time" not "24 hours as we know it"), then it could actually fit into our modern scientific knowledge of the creation of the world and the species. The order that the bible says the world was created (separate earth from sky, then water, then animals etc) matches science (volcanos created atmosphere, then rains makes the oceans, from which life starts). Also even the order of some of the animals are similar afaik (fish -> reptiles -> birds -> men etc) in both the genesis and the modern evolution theory.
And when Bible talks about the "pillars" that the Earth rests upon, and the "waters above," what is it "really" saying?
|
On May 23 2009 14:05 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2009 13:54 VIB wrote:
In case you didn't know, your theory have already existed for a long time. According to many people, if you don't take the bible literally (a "day" in the bible could mean "a long period of time" not "24 hours as we know it"), then it could actually fit into our modern scientific knowledge of the creation of the world and the species. The order that the bible says the world was created (separate earth from sky, then water, then animals etc) matches science (volcanos created atmosphere, then rains makes the oceans, from which life starts). Also even the order of some of the animals are similar afaik (fish -> reptiles -> birds -> men etc) in both the genesis and the modern evolution theory. And when Bible talks about the "pillars" that the Earth rests upon, and the "waters above," what is it "really" saying? First of all, don't ask ME. I never read the bible, I have no idea what color it has. I just brought it up this because it was relevant to what Charlie posted. I know my father talks a lot about that and there are many many different books on this subject (science + bible).
But a 10sec googling found this:
So the phrase "pillars of heaven" and "pillars of earth" are referring to the same mountains. One emphasizes the height of the mountains holding up heaven, the other emphasizes the depth of the mountains that hold the earth firm. - http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_pillarsearth.htm
From my point of view, some parts of the bible (it's a very big book written by many different people) has some very well thought philosophies and theories that doesn't go against any modern science at all. I'm just too young and immature to ever bother reading it :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.donkeydish.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/howard-dean-8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/9/9c/Guardian_SC1_GameAnim1.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5996/startrek2.jpg)
