GameBanshee Forums

The evidence for is ofcourse overwhelming but its allways interesting to hear views to the contrary.

well? have you evolved ... punk...

Well here is a link to a thread that featured me(badly)and Waverly arguing about Evolution.

[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000586&p=8"]Sleep on a loosing Streak - Theological[/url]

well if Gwalchmai and waverly couldnt convince you - what chance stand I.

But there are no specifik arguements here yet or has everybody certainly become rational?

None of the powerhouses of debate are around at the moment, and your topic is extremely ambiguous, post some thoughts of your own on the subject, and you might get some replies.

ambiguous? erm ok.

the general theory of evouloution that darwin first dicoverd/invented. is it true or is it false?

ok - but i dont have the time to post anything right now - but i will get back to you.

a lot of people make a distinct separation between micro and macro evolution.
micro- the changes within a gene pool to change oen species.
macro - the development of whole new species from previous ones...such as man from monkey.

there is plenty of evidence for micro evolution, the best of which being a species of moth in london that used to be predominantly a light colour, but due to the industrial revolution, the occassional dark variety was now able to hide better against the stained smoke stacks, and eventually there were no more of the light ones.

on the other side, there is no actual evidence, just speculation for macro evolution. there has never been any intermediary fossils to show where one species was changing.

Macro evolution is only the product of many, many micro evolutions. Its not like something jumped up on two legs all of a sudden. One animal learned how to balance it and had success with so other animals over time developed it. If there is proof of micro evolution is that not proof for macro. Besides what do you mean the are no bones of apes changing to humans. what about Homo Erectus, Homo Africanus, and Neanderthals.

True

@ Happy Evil did you get your signature from a SNL scit with Phil Hartman as Frank sinatra and Sting as Bill Idol?

If i lived in Kansas evolution would be false but i don't so its true.

Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>a lot of people make a distinct separation between micro and macro evolution.
micro- the changes within a gene pool to change oen species.
macro - the development of whole new species from previous ones...such as man from monkey.

there is plenty of evidence for micro evolution, the best of which being a species of moth in london that used to be predominantly a light colour, but due to the industrial revolution, the occassional dark variety was now able to hide better against the stained smoke stacks, and eventually there were no more of the light ones.

on the other side, there is no actual evidence, just speculation for macro evolution. there has never been any intermediary fossils to show where one species was changing.</STRONG>

Actually, there is proof of macro evolution, though to a lesser extent than monkey to man. Example, there are two different species of squirrel located on either side of the Grand Canyon. It has been proven that those two species evolved from one species of squirrel. They are both still squirrels but they are different species.

has an actual fossil record been established for the common ancestor for the squirrels? being separated by somethign geographical, such as the grand canyon, automatically distinguishes species.
take darwin's island, tons of finches, that, in theory, should have come from a common ancestor, but there is no proof of this common ancestor.

Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>has an actual fossil record been established for the common ancestor for the squirrels? being separated by somethign geographical, such as the grand canyon, automatically distinguishes species.
take darwin's island, tons of finches, that, in theory, should have come from a common ancestor, but there is no proof of this common ancestor.</STRONG>

I haven't done much research into the topic, but this example came from the mouth of a Christian biology teacher and she said it was proven, and I don't think she would lie to help evolution.

creationism and evolution don't have to be exclusive from one another.
even stephen hawking believes there has to be a god out there, more like aristotle's unmoved mover, rather than a judeochrostian ideal...but still.

Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>creationism and evolution don't have to be exclusive from one another.
even stephen hawking believes there has to be a god out there, more like aristotle's unmoved mover, rather than a judeochrostian ideal...but still.</STRONG>

@Nael, Creationism isn't simply a recognition of any god, or even a Christian god. It flat out denies that there was life on Earth before the 5000+ year period stated in a literal fashion in the bible.

@fable - that's just not true. creatiionism is a much more generalized theory than evolution. it also entails the origins of the universe and the like. i can gaurantee you that there are people out there who are creationists and are not Christians or Jews, and there are definitely those who consider themselves creationists who do nto believe that (strangely interpreted) literal 5,000 year age set by some fundamentalist. the majority of christians in the world do not read the Bible in that manner.

Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>@fable - that's just not true. creatiionism is a much more generalized theory than evolution. it also entails the origins of the universe and the like. i can gaurantee you that there are people out there who are creationists and are not Christians or Jews...</STRONG>

With respect, I find this very hard to believe, for the simple fact that creationism is founded up on a literalist interpretation of the bible. If you're not a Christian or Jew, why would you use the bible as a tool for explaining cosmology?

Paul Abramson, best known for his work, A Defense of Creationism, bases his theories and beliefs on creation and a "great flood" as recorded in the bible.

Walt Brown's extremely popular In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, is considered a primer for Creationism. It deals with Adam & Eve, and The Great Flood.

The central website for Creationism, [url="http://www.creationism.org,"]www.creationism.org,[/url] banners the following: "Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

...but I could go on. While it is true that Creationists try to sometimes hide their biblical agendas (because they rightly believe that people won't give 'em the time of day if they start with a non-scientific agenda in a non-scientific book), their positive arguments are all built upon the bible. They don't knock down Evolution alone; they seek to build up Creationism. And that's based upon a fundamentalist Christian interpretation of the OT.

i do agree that fundamental christians tend to lay claim to creationism and make it their own, but in a general sense, it really only refers to an antithesis of some scientific theories.
creation vs. big bang
creation vs. evolution

every religion has its theories of creation of the universe and of man.

@fable - we are basically just playing semantics. we simply have different definitions of what we think creationism entails.

Evolution One of my favorite topics I'll do my best to describe the concept of evolution, the theory of evolution and I also hope to be able to clarify some common misunderstandings.

Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>on the other side, there is no actual evidence, just speculation for macro evolution. there has never been any intermediary fossils to show where one species was changing.</STRONG>

This is a very common misunderstanding, and I'll do my best to explain what is known so far Please ask if I'm too vague, I'm no expert in this field although I have a good working knowlegde about it.

So, what is evolution? Evolution is simply defined as a change in the gene pool of a population. A population is a group of individuals, for instance the famous English moths. Genes change, some individuals reproduce and some not, and over time, the gene pool in that population has changed.

Evolution is not a hierarchy where "lower" creatures evolve into "higher". It should be viewed like a gigantic bush with many, many different branches. For instance, some people believe that evolution theory says humans have evolved from the apes. That's not true in the sense that no apes that live today are ancestors to us. Instead, chimps and humans had a common ancestor about 7-8 million years ago, and has since evolved in separate lineages.

The theory of evolution is not the same thing as evolution. The theory of evolution consists of three parts:

1. Organisms living on planet earth are related by common descent.
2. Description of the history of evolution, ie how and when certain lineage split from another.
3. Describing and understanding the mechanisms of 2.

No 1 is a "fact", just like the earth is round or matter consists of atoms . It's also the most fundamental part, and it's established with utmost certainty. Actually, it's one of the most founded theories in all of science, much more founded than for instance the theory of relativity for instance. When we scientists use the word "fact", we do not mean "everlasting unchangeable truth", we mean proven beyond reasonable doubt as so far not falsified. Evolution is a fact in the same sense that gravity is a fact. Newton and Einstein both presented theories about gravity, as No 2 and 3 above presents theories about evolution.

So, No 2 and 3 are theories, still very much under construction, and it's no surprise they create both confusion and many different opinions. Exactly how are different species connected to each other? Which are and which aren't? When did a certain species change, into what and how? And what are the exact mechanisms that cause evolutionary change? Many different hypotheses and theories are around, some very well founded, other mere speculation that is currently under examination.

As you all know, an individual has a set of genes, that differ from other individuals. Thus, in a population, a lot of individuals with different gene sets, exist. Evolution works through this variation in the gene pool of a population, and different kind of selection mechanisms act upon the variation.

The exact mechanisms of evolutionary change are what is most poorly understood. Some mechanisms are very well understood, others not, and we are probably far from having discovered all different mechanisms of change.

The currently known mechanisms of change can be roughly divided into two groups: selection mechanisms like natural selection or sexual selection, and providers of genetic variation like mutation, chromosome variations and genetic drift. Of the above mentioned, genetic drift is currently considered as equally or more influencial than natural selection.

A common misunderstanding is that microevolution differs from macroevolution and speciation and that macroevolution has not been observed empirically. Another common misunderstanding is that there should be "a missing link" between two species, and that such missing links have not been found.

Firstly, there is not really a limit between micro- and macro evoulution, macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution, over a longer time period. Macroevolution has been studied among many species with shorter life span than humans, for instance flies and a lot of plants. If someone wants references, I'll post some.

Secondly, the idea that there must be a "missing links" between two species (for instance chimps and humans) in order to have common ancestors, is a misconception. There is no such thing a s a single "missing link" or transitional fossile between species, the transitions are slow, and therefore many transitional states lie between two species. Let's look at the primate evolution as an example. Chimps and homo sapiens are two species with a common ancestor, from where several lineages developed. One line resulted in chimps, another line resulted in humans. The route from this common ancestor to today took about 6 million years and many transitional forms of which fossiles are found. Now, links between species are not established by fossil findings only, nowadays molecular data is used to confirm that morhological similarity also reflect genetic similarity, and molecular data support the fossile findings for primate evolution.

I think the best recorded transition between species is that between bears and hyenas. I read somewhere that every single change is documented in fossile record, so for those who feel like knowing more about how one species can change into another, bears and hyenas probably is a good case to study.

Hope my post has helped the discussion

@Fable and Nael: Aren't there several kinds of creationism around, like "young earth creationism" who believe the earth is like 6000 years old, and "old earth creationism" like the Jehova's witnesses? Does all creationism exclude evolution?

I'd very much like to hear more about creationism, it's a very uncommon view where I live, and the young earth fundamentalist version I've seen on the web, actually gives me the creeps, it's very scary.