Evolution

[zkreso]

Well I have read neither the Bible nor any elaborate explanation of darwin's origin of the species, so I am not really qualified to say anything, but what bugs me is that we are taught to believe in both without questioning them.

[Nicole]

I just don't believe evolution can be accepted as a 'law' of science....I can't get extremely technical with you, I'm a terribly right-brained artist rather than a scientist-minded person.

But if evolution is true, why are genetic mutations today harmful and most times fatal? Evolution seems to be based on the theory that somehow we all lucked out and the mutations throughout history helped us adapt to our environment. I find this hard to believe.

I can understand your skeptism towards Creation if you are not a Christian...but I cannot understand why it is considered an ignorant, 'fingers in your ears' approach to believe Creation, but yet it is considered sophisticated and intellectual to accept evolution.

[Sodfather]

Originally posted by Nicole+Sep 1 2003, 03:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nicole @ Sep 1 2003, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But if evolution is true, why are genetic mutations today harmful and most times fatal? Evolution seems to be based on the theory that somehow we all lucked out and the mutations throughout history helped us adapt to our environment. I find this hard to believe.[/b]

Yes, that is one of the limited numbers of arguments against evolution. [color=red]<run on sentence>[/color]The majority of mutations are very minute, but I guess the theory is that since a positive mutation would aid the organism in surviving (natural selection) and the trait would be more likely to be passed on, and then there's different populations of organisms who've developed different kind sof mutations, and once they interbreed you can end up with an organism so different that it can no longer breed with its species, hence becoming a new one.[color=red]</run on sentence>[/color]
<!--QuoteBegin-Nicole@Sep 1 2003, 03:44 PM
I just don't believe evolution can be accepted as a 'law' of science....[/quote]
You gotta use your head before making comments like that; no one (that I know of) is saying it is a law, that's why it's called a theory. It's generally accepted as true, but it does have a few flaws preventing it from becoming a law.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Nicole
Genetic mutations are random chance and almost always detrimential, I suggest you actually learn some of the science you wish to dispute, or stick to debating things that you know something about. The theory is that the improvements endure and the less lucky die. Not a quick process, but a workable one.

I am not trying to cause offence, but someone has to tell you. I thought the last post of yours I read was well thought out, but this one makes you look a bit foolish.

I have trouble with evolution where it tries to explain alternate spieces, the time frame needed to produce blindly the number of chromosome pairs in humanity seems to contradict the age of the planent...

[fedfem]

Nicole, did you ever take biology in school? Mutations are mutations, period! Some are good and some are bad. Adaptation is not a "theory", it is observable. As far as lucking out.....we--as a species--are far from done as far as evolving and mutating.

[fedfem]

GWB, HUH? Please share where there is a dispute that contradicts.

Sodfather, what is an argument against evolution? Evolution is a process. The scientists job is go understand how the process works using theory and proving and disproving points of said theory. Evolution is a theory in the same sense that Gravity is. The big difference between them is that environment can effect evolution and has and continues to this day.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I will be happy to post it a little later, I have an appointment at the gym, lunch, and a C++ program that is due tomorrow...

[Sodfather]

Originally posted by fedfem@Sep 1 2003, 04:17 PM Sodfather, what is an argument against evolution?

I am for evolution, remember that, but I don't ignore the facts.

Most mutations are so minute that if you take the time period between bacteria and humans, the changes are so overwhelming that it's hard to believe small mutations over time, even this large amount of time, were the culprit. That's something that still needs to be worked out fully. Not a biggie, but still an argument.

[fedfem]

Wasn't disputing, just keeping an open mind. I haven't come across an argument based on mutation that held any weight. Do you have a link or reference to the argument? I will check out talkorigins in the meantime. Thanks in advance.

[Dislogic]

Originally posted by Sodfather@Sep 1 2003, 04:56 PM I am for evolution, remember that, but I don't ignore the facts. Most mutations are so minute that if you take the time period between bacteria and humans, the changes are so overwhelming that it's hard to believe small mutations over time, even this large amount of time, were the culprit. That's something that still needs to be worked out fully. Not a biggie, but still an argument.

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea the amount of time from one celled organisms to apes/humans was? well ill let you know - about 4 billion years... give or take of course a couple millions of years... thats a long time.

if you would like to see the facts about evolution go to this website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html

i have yet to see any holes or contradictions (except for the belief of religons that promote creationism) towards evolution and if there are any real facts against it then i would love for someone to enlighten me.

edited: wrong numbers made my point more evident though once i fixed them.

[Nicole]

I was misunderstood on the 'law' comment. I put it in quotes for lack of a better word.

I suppose my only opinion on this matter should be (since I am not an accomplished scientist or equivalent) that evolution is no more acceptable to me than Creation is to you. I'll stick to what I said before- you've chosen to accept the studies of men, I've chosen to accept the word of God. The only difference is the theory of Creation is in itself perfect if you have faith. Evolution as you've said yourself is flawed.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Dislogic@Sep 1 2003, 05:14 PM Do you have any idea the amount of time from one celled organisms to apes/humans was? well ill let you know - about 4.2 million years... give or take of course thousands of years... thats a long time.

Erm...theres something wrong with your numbers. Dinosaurs died 65 million years ago, so that would make dinosaurs predecessors to single cell organisms by a long way...

The first clear evidence for single cell organisms (blue greens and algea) are about 3.5 billions years ago, in the Pretozoic Era. The earliest for primates are estimated at around 65 million years back, following the end of the Mesozoic, the time of the dino's. The earliest era for apes is the Oligocene period, 35.4 million years ago. So in the overall time scale of earth, human development has been pretty damned fast.

And there have been some mutations that have been beneficial that are recent. Sickle Cell anaemia, although obviously harmful in the lower O2 distribution, is beneficial in places where malaria is prevelant, because (i don't know the science of how) the sick/cell sufferer is more resistant to the disease.

And then there are minor differences. Human bodies have adapted to their environment to better suit the conditions. Hot continents have human populations producing more melanin, in order to protect them from harmful UV rays. In northern continents, people produce less because they would otherwise be less able to produce Vitamin B, which needs sunlight to convert it. People from colder climates are hairier.

I read an article describing how human joints in the hand and wrist are changing, with focus of strength and dexterity in the thumb rather than the index finger, adapting to our remote controls/computer games/mobile phone use.

Although that is not an adaptation that is passed on in an evolutionary method, in that it is neccesary for survival, it still demonstrates how useful changes come about.

Major changes are more rare, but they do come about. I know it sounds daft, but the gradual extinction of dwarfism demonstrates this. There used to be villages of dwarves throughout Europe, hell the leader of the Byzantines in the Elizabethan era, can't remember his name, had a regiment of dwarf soldiers. But it is an unnatractive quality, and so the mutation is dying out.

[Dislogic]

oops meant 4.2 billion years... lol well i will change that.

[Dislogic]

Originally posted by G. Adams@Sep 1 2003, 07:39 PM The first clear evidence for single cell organisms (blue greens and algea) are about 3.5 billions years ago, in the Pretozoic Era. The earliest for primates are estimated at around 65 million years back, following the end of the Mesozoic, the time of the dino's. The earliest era for apes is the Oligocene period, 35.4 million years ago. So in the overall time scale of earth, human development has been pretty damned fast.

ok well this is true but i believe the post i was replying stated that they were unsure how it would be possible for primates to form initially... and that took a long time...

also the fast evolution of the human species may be due to the fact that our minds have a much wider opening for change and greet it with flexibility as opposed to other species, are ability to adapt has enabled us to evolve faster i believe. now that is a theory of my own! hurray for me!

oh and G. Adams i do agree with you in your last statement completey...

[G. Adams]

Actually I don't quite agree with the primate dates anyway myself, I've seen different records all over but thats the one I found first.

On the subject of our minds being better suited to adapting and generally more intelligent, this change only came about when our ancestors began eating meat. The much increased protein allowed the changed. So my veggie friends there is a reason to eat meat, apart from it being more tasty than tofu and quorn.

[Dislogic]

Originally posted by G. Adams@Sep 1 2003, 08:10 PM Actually I don't quite agree with the primate dates anyway myself, I've seen different records all over but thats the one I found first. On the subject of our minds being better suited to adapting and generally more intelligent, this change only came about when our ancestors began eating meat. The much increased protein allowed the changed. So my veggie friends there is a reason to eat meat, apart from it being more tasty than tofu and quorn.

lol but i think we dont want to start a vegetarian/carnivore war in this thread... sounds like another good topic to argue and discuss though...

and on the dates... mine are really estimates based on one site i visited on the internet which i wont promise accuaracy for but i think they get the idea that it was a long time.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

From a human standpoint it is a long time. But the time period from the development of organisms that reproduce by sexual concoure to present time seems a little too short. The staticial analysis I put it through demanded about 100 times that much time. Still possible but lacks credibility.

[Dislogic]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 1 2003, 09:00 PM From a human standpoint it is a long time. But the time period from the development of organisms that reproduce by sexual concoure to present time seems a little too short. The staticial analysis I put it through demanded about 100 times that much time. Still possible but lacks credibility.

no offense but.. are you joking? what "staticial analysis" did you put the information into? because otherwise i was going to say that how could any of us really decide what the appropriate time it would take for such things to occur... we have no personal knoweldge of such things and cant compare it to lifeforms on other planets. And also as far as i know known of us here are scientists though i suppose i may be mistakin about that.

[cachekntx]

Heh... I was writing my post up... and ended up being an essay... so I'll fix it up and post it one day if I can be bothered... I've had so many arguements with folks over this particular subject that it reached a point with me that I really had to question my general faith in man himself...

When you bring a scientific theory and argue it against religion it's like a never ending circle... so why do it? Can't you see the obvious?

There's so much we don't understand about religion AND about evolution... you can debate on these two subjects for eternity.... and neither one will win the other over...

Hell... if I can explain it all then I might as well be God... and the day man can explain it all (with only absolute facts - which every scientist knows that there are no absolutes...) then man can play God... can be God... and do whatever he wishes... So how does this does not prove that God exists to begin with?

Bleh and this is where my long essay gets pasted here.... hehehe but I'll leave this for another time....

[Dislogic]

dont you understand that this is called a theory but it must be fact since you can actually see the change in bones and fossils of species over time?! scientists have clearly shown this, how can you possibly explain this other then evolution... (im not talking about religous people or creationists since they probably dont even give the arguement any thought) i mean i think that this theory is as good as proven and i believe that many scientists already accept this "theory" as fact.

edit: changed my post a few times... lol my bad.