Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

hellcatv

Swabbie
Banned
as opposed to hot air :)

For the unenlightened: yes a theory can be disproven...that's what makes it a theory--
a good theory, like Darwin's theory, is backed by hell of a lot of evidence that points to it being true

ironically I think over 50% of america would rather ignore this evidence and revert to wild speculation :)
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
Yeah...glad to see this thread is still making sense...

As far as Evolution...haha, well there's too many holes in that theory to make it hold water. I don't got the time or the energy to deflate that balloon. If you want a debate PM and we'll keep it civil.
 

Edx

Spaceman
hellcatv said:
as opposed to hot air :)

For the unenlightened: yes a theory can be disproven

Oh God, please lets not litter this forum with religion/science debates! They get ugly.

Ed
 

MamiyaOtaru

Spaceman
Maj.Striker said:
As far as Evolution...haha, well there's too many holes in that theory to make it hold water. I don't got the time or the energy to deflate that balloon. If you want a debate PM and we'll keep it civil.
LOL I have no problem with evolution. It just seemed like the thread was devolving into flames so I thought I'd get one in. Hellcat warned me people would take me seriously, but oh well :D
 

hellcatv

Swabbie
Banned
Mamiya0taru: Never underestimate the power of the "Asbestos Suit"...
I mean Linus even dons it from time to time ;-)
 

Mjr. Whoopass

<FONT color=lightblue><B>I was going to say someth
hellcatv said:
a good theory, like Darwin's theory, is backed by hell of a lot of evidence that points to it being true
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (Underlines added for later reference)

Scientists in advanced fields of study have discovered numerous examples of "irreducible complexity":

Examples include the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting mechanism, and the biochemical processes behind vision. Reverse-engineering of these and other biological structures shows that evolutionary processes weren't at work in creating them. As these scientists say, they could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

Although Darwin's theory by his own admission "absolutely break(s) down", we do in some way "evolve". We obviously evolve in the sense that we change from generation to generation (i.e. I'm different than my dad, who's also different than Edx/BanditLOAF/Tolwyn/etc... if religious people are concerned by this statement: Cain was different than Able/Soloman/Peter/etc..). However, we all continue to have the same parts. Even in the case of someone being born with an extra finger/webbed feet/etc., these are still alterations of the current parts. For scientific people: you know how the fruit fly/radiation and other experiments back this up (and how the above mentioned parts [biochemical processes/etc.] cannot form from slight modifications).
 

Shipgate

Rear Admiral
For instance: more and more females today are being born without a hymen. And I hear goosebumps are very gradually going away too.
 

steampunk

Spaceman
I have not posted here in a long time. I'll stir some trouble up.

Mjr. Whoopass said:
As these scientists say, they could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

You must be quoting dead scientists. Those ideas are at the very least, very old. The 2nd link when googling for "evolution eye" returns

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

The first line of the last paragraph reads

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.

There is also a nice quicktime documentary to watch.
 

Fruitcake

Spaceman
I just can't believe there are still people who doubt the Evolution-theory. But hey maybe I'm just ignorant, I'm a European atheist after all. :rolleyes:
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
As the Wing Commander movie teaches us, there's always some sort of background that we don't know.

Still, trying to "disprove" evolution by simply quoting Darwin is like closing your eyes to avoid being hit by a car. Darwin was a grand fellow and all, but he wrote Origin of the Species before there was any sort of understanding of genetics.
 

Nemesis

Spaceman
Scientists in advanced fields of study have discovered numerous examples of "irreducible complexity":

Examples include the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting mechanism, and the biochemical processes behind vision. Reverse-engineering of these and other biological structures shows that evolutionary processes weren't at work in creating them. As these scientists say, they could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

Although Darwin's theory by his own admission "absolutely break(s) down". . .

What?! Science has shown that Darwin’s theory of evolution is wrong? For heavens sake, how did I miss that announcement in the major news outlets?:)

Really, I think it’s great that the claim of “irreducible complexity” is flung around like a gauntlet. As the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that’s what science is all about. Indeed, it’s tempting to see science as fundamentally the effort to determine the irreducibilities of existence.

But that is all that “irreducible complexity” and its associated term (and overreaching misnomer) “intelligent design” are–a normal, run-of-the-mill conjecture challenging some (but clearly not all) the tenets of a reigning scientific theory (in this case about the origin of life).

Certainly no one has proven, let alone discovered, the “irreducible complexity” of the few examples mentioned. There’s still so much that isn’t understood about biochemistry after all, particularly outside the petri dish–for example, most biologists and geneticists are still struggling to wrap their minds around the apparent fact that the human genome comprises a significantly lesser number of genes than previously believed, which discovery in turn challenges prior notions of how genes can–but clearly do–give rise to the rich diversity and complexity of the biological, physical life in our world. (And no genuine advocate of “intelligent design”, at least one who wants to be taken seriously as a scientist, is going to suggest that the “intelligent designer” is always “prodding”–in real time!–each and every genotype with a metaphysical finger.)

None of this is to say that evolution as formulated by Darwin and as refined or amended by others since (yes, please, let us not suggest that evolution rises or falls exclusively on Darwin’s shoulders) will prove immutable over time against any and all challenges. The history of science is replete with once-reigning-now-toppled theories But all of this is to say that it is the job of the scientific community to make that call, not individuals (even with Ph.D’s) who like to write books with intriguing titles aimed mostly at a gullible public.
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
Alright...since we now have a thread for this. I will respond as best I can. Evolution is an interesting theory...but unfortunately (like most theories) it has numerous problems with it. Let's begin with some simple math (and I mean simple since I am not the greatest with math :) ).

1. According to the Evolutionist theories that I've seen, man (as we know and understand it) reached its current stage around 2 million years ago. Now assuming that at this stage there were two of these creatures (Man and Woman because if it had been another man things would have gotten screwed up or if it had been only one man things might have got a little screwy...I don't know of the feasibility of a man mating with an Ape and I don't really want to know but I assume its not possible). Anyways back to the point at hand, so 2 million years ago we have a man and a woman. Of course, they do the human thing and shack up together creating the first human-born baby. Fantastic!!!

Okay so now we take a look at the math involved. Let's use a simple formula...the current growth rate of the world's population is about 1.195 percent (it was significantly higher back then but for an overall average lets say 1.195%. Now due to diseases, wars, murders, catastophes and just plain old age leading to death, let's say every 50 years the population is halved. So if there were 5 billion people 50 years ago...now there are only 2.5 billion. (I feel this is extremely generous). Using math, we now have a problem. If we go back to those first two humans and start computing their population growth it doesn't add up. 2 million years is a long way to go back so let's only go back 40,000 years (makes it easier). The earth's population should be around, hmm, about several trillion people it would appear that we're a little short of that number? Maybe in another 40,000 years?

The biggest problem with Evolution is the amount of time it assumes it must take creatures to evolve. The moon is gradually drifting farther and farther apart from Earth (to be fair the rate of the drift is hardly noticeable) however when we turn the speed dial back 200 million years (I believe that's when most evolutionists believe the first one celled organisms existed on earth. The Moon would have been so close to the Earth then that the gravity of Earth would have sucked it in and the resulting devestation would have rendered this planet unliveable for any creature. (I believe some scientist thing perhaps the moon was originally a part of the Earth but this also is pretty difficult to believe...how did it clear Earth's orbit to begin with?).

Okay, another thing, the sun is slowly expending itself (again, this is at a rate that's extremely small by our own standards, something like 6 feet in diameter each year). Compute that back two hundred million years and you got a sun thats so hot this world wouldn't be liveable (even for one celled organism).

But there's a few more things, the Magnetic field of Earth is decreasing at a rate that is essentially half its strength every 1400 years. So back in the good ole Reneisance the magnetic field was twice as strong as it is now. Compute that equation back two million years ago and you have a magnetic field around the earth that's so strong the iron in your blood wouldn't be able to move.

There's several examples of these sorts of things that are impossible due to time. There's a lot of questions that Evolution (to me) just doesn't answer. If man evolved from a monkey...why are there still monkeys? :) (I always like that one). The Big Bang theory is also quite unbelievable but this post is large enough.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Your issues all rely on the assumption that all changes are somehow constant.

I had one dollar in my pocket yesterday. Today I had two. Despite these staggering facts, there is very little chance that I will be a billionaire in one months time.

(heck, I'm not a historian or a math-ologist, but I can tell you right off that your population growth claim is completely bunk -- it's only very recently that population growth has growh so significantly. In the recent past people didn't live as long and their children didn't survive as frequently -- and you'd have things like plagues that killed half the population of Europe...)

(And you righteous indignation doesn't make sense, either. The idea that 'man evolved from monkeys' isn't what evolution claims at all -- rather, the claim is that man and monkeys have at one point in their evolution a common anscestor.)
 
Wow, I really don't mean to offend Maj. Striker, but that is probobaly either the funniest of saddest post I've read in a while. I haven't decided.
 

hellcatv

Swabbie
Banned
The man from monkey's comment was just quoting Wing Commander 3's taunt "Pathetic descendent of monkeys"
and by no means should be taken seriously ;-) at any level or form

Just to throw this out there: simply the similarity yet transposition and slight munging of the DNA sequences that we see in evolutionarily diverse species (I'm writing a research program to use hidden markov models to fuzzy-match protein and DNA sequences actually...) is quite incredible... it just shows you how much we have in common with other mammals...and even primitive organisms (at the cell-level) like bacterium...
And it also shows you how much junk in the DNA actually does nothing at all-- for a sequence could be flipped, partially deleted, have some random insertions, yet still contain working codes for proteins for various cell operations.
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
Corsair(pilot) said:
Wow, I really don't mean to offend Maj. Striker, but that is probobaly either the funniest of saddest post I've read in a while. I haven't decided.

Wow, that is very scientific...I love how you refuted these claims with strong logical reasoning.

As to answer Loaf, I apologize for the population statement, my math was off, I think I corrected it. 1.195% is a more realistic rate growth rate as an average for the past 2 million years. However you'll note I didn't discard the diseases and massive wars and things, that's why the population is halved every 50 years. But I'm willing to discard this argument as it perhaps is not considered a constant.

However your comparision to constants is wrong...unlike the dollar in your pocket, the earth's magnetic decay (for example) is very much a constant...it's measurable, it's predictable to the degree that any scientist can safely rely. The Moon's drift is also constant and again measurable.

I'm not saying I know the answers, I'm just asking the questions. I don't claim to be an expert merely stating the problems I find (as a casual observer) of Evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top