The missing link found. - Page 9

On May 21 2009 11:48 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
I'd like to remind people that micro evolution HAS been proven and recreated in labortory coniditions. AND repeated by independent researchers.

They witnessed bacteria that, when deprived of other food sources in a closed environment(obviously), managed to evolve the ability to break down and consume nylon as a food source.

Evolution is essentially fact at this point amongst the scientific community. Only (select)members of the general public are ignorant enough to dismiss it completely. Typically the religious right.

On May 21 2009 11:40 Aegraen wrote:


You missed the whole point. We know the mechanic of gravity exists for a fact. We can test it, measure it, and observe it. We may not understand 'how' it works, but we know it in fact exists.

Evolution on the other hand, has never been observed on a scale of such to see how different species in the same tree can turn out so different visually, and biologically. That is because of the long time span, we can only 'infer' or guess based on a hypothesis. Until we actually observe the evolutionary leaps and jumps, we can't conclusively say anything on the macro scale of evolution. We understand the micro scale of evolution pretty well, and we can extrapolate that to macro scale, but it doesn't give us as clear a picture. We have evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds (avian), but if dinosaurs presumably (as much as we know) were wiped out relatively quickly, how come there is no fossil records of bird like species at the time of dinosaurs? Archeoptrix (sp?), is the closest link if I remember correctly, and that is very inconclusive to make such a giant leap.

So, yes, our understanding of the mechanics of gravity are vastly superior to that of evolution.

On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote:


Evolution doesn't work like that. The species can't specify the mutation they need. If that was the case then there is no chance in the world. Everything is pre-ordained, pre-planned, running its course. That is why there is extinction. Generally, at the time the mutation has to exist somewhere within the population in order for the species to survive. If you rely on the assumption that species when confronted magically start creating mutations to survive, well...thats false. (If you deprive such a small population of food, and expect it to live, thats not how evolution works; this was my point, and good luck creating that scenario to play out over and over)

The greatest data we have on micro evolution is in regards to fruit flies. Their lifespan is extremely short, and we can observe on a faster scale the effects. However, even at this point, we have not seen fruit flies evolve into some other 'species' even though we are literally flying through generations. You know why that is? Because environment is the greatest function to facilitate the need and function of mutations / evolution.

How do humans have such a large geneology tree, yet at the time Africa was open plains, much as it is today (This is the reason for bipedalism given by scientists), which doesn't isolate anything at all. If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today. That is what they setting out to try and make sense of. Our knowledge of macro evolution is severely lacking.

On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote:


Evolution doesn't work like that. The species can't specify the mutation they need. If that was the case then there is no chance in the world. Everything is pre-ordained, pre-planned, running its course. That is why there is extinction. Generally, at the time the mutation has to exist somewhere within the population in order for the species to survive. If you rely on the assumption that species when confronted magically start creating mutations to survive, well...thats false. (If you deprive such a small population of food, and expect it to live, thats not how evolution works; this was my point, and good luck creating that scenario to play out over and over)

The greatest data we have on micro evolution is in regards to fruit flies. Their lifespan is extremely short, and we can observe on a faster scale the effects. However, even at this point, we have not seen fruit flies evolve into some other 'species' even though we are literally flying through generations. You know why that is? Because environment is the greatest function to facilitate the need and function of mutations / evolution.

How do humans have such a large geneology tree, yet at the time Africa was open plains, much as it is today (This is the reason for bipedalism given by scientists), which doesn't isolate anything at all. If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today. That is what they setting out to try and make sense of. Our knowledge of macro evolution is severely lacking.

On May 21 2009 11:46 Descent wrote:
^ 'Science' as you use it depends upon the assumption that the human intellect is capable of producing thoughts and conclusions that are accurate to some degree. When there is a loss of precision in our data, we question our theories, no? However, have you considered the possibility that the first assumption may be incorrect?

And no, I'm not trying to instigate you. I'd just like to suggest that there is an assumption being made that is vital in order for science's tenets to work, and it may or may not be true. After all, how can a relevant experiment be conducted to verify it?

Edit: Meant for the post above Motiva's.

Edit 2: Typo.

On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote:
I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3

So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.

On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote:
I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3

So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.

On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote:
If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today.

On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote:
I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3

So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.

On May 21 2009 12:08 Mindcrime wrote:


Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static.

On May 21 2009 12:11 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:

I see.

I find it funny how completely clueless you are.

Modern science completely understands the mechanisms of muscles. What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck even wikipedia(which is extremely basic) completely explains how the work. Have you ever taken an organic biology or chemestry class? Every looked in a biology text book?

On May 21 2009 12:08 Mindcrime wrote:


Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static.

On May 21 2009 12:21 Aegraen wrote:


To be honest, that is rudimentary at best. Since I've started to get back into BB, the wealth of information, studies, is astonishing. I've had to go back and dig through other scientific sources to make sense of the terminology. Even then, its small sample sizes (relatively) and extrapolations made from those observed by the actual intake of the substances, however since the body is so complex it's hard to isolate that one item and be conclusive that, that is what is causing X to happen.

This is all related to fitness, bodybuilding, muscle formation, cellular transportation, etc. Hell, just reading about the optimal sodium levels, is a course worthy of a 400-500 college level class lol.