GameBanshee Forums

Arse

Actually those belong on the "one word answers only" topic but oh well.

@Azeroth: Hmmm - well I don't think they belong in this thread - maybe in the "one word only" -thread.

Posted by Eminem -

It will not evolve by chance genetic mutations (which are invariably more fatal than benign) into a living, breathing, thinking human being no matter how much time (the magic factor in this equation) you want to give it.

Well I am no scientist, but logic would say that if this mutation is tiny enough and gradual enough over a long enough period of time, where the alterations (and mutations) in the environment of a species move at the same pace as the mutation of the animals' cells, and selective breeding continues to strengthen the links between creature and environment, then surely there would be room for benign evolution.

Where mutations happen too quickly over too short a period, or there is a drastic change in environment which allows no space for gradual adaptation, then there is more risk of evolution not occuring and the death of a species. An example of this would be the dinosaurs...

Maybe another example of mutation happening too quickly is cancer (though there is now a proven scientific link that some people have a genetic weakness towards certain 'hereditary' cancers - which could be a by product of this family line hiccupping somewhere way way back), most cancers are a product of our modern day living (smoking, drinking, chemical poisoning).

That is a thought! Maybe given another couple of billion years and the human body may evolve to such an extent that it is impervious to these poisons

It is seen in the wild how important selective breeding is for the preservation of the species. Only the strongest male lion will pass on his genes, and kill the cubs of a beta male - given the chance.

Just my humble opinion

Originally posted by GrimReaper:
<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.</STRONG>

I have yet to read the rest of this topic yet, so someone might've already commented on this, but I'm going to say it anyway. If you don't like that I'm saying this, then bite me.

Those are still two species of squirrel, that would still be "micro evolution"

Macro evolution would be one genus evolving into another genus. i.e., felines turning into canines.(though I would consider that a form of de-evolution as it would not be improvement. ).

You can crossbread two species of dogs, but the resulting puppies are not an example of macro evolution. They are still within the same genus, just different species.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>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.</STRONG>

This is one of my favorite topics to debate, too. However, I often find that, though those I debate with consider it one of their favorite topics, they tend to change their mind by the time I finish debating with them.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<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. </STRONG>

Just as the Bible is open to interpretation, so are fossils. It's all based on assumption and faith in your belief that you are right. I'm not an expert on evolution either, but I do believe it is important, for one who debates, to know what she believes and what her 'opponent' believes.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>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.</STRONG>

Change is constant. The world is ever evolving. I do believe in evolution on the universal(and abiological) scale, just not on the biological scale.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>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.</STRONG>

Evolution and adaptation are often mistaken. Though evolution can be used in place of adaptation, this should not be done because that can confuse the issue between adapting to one's environment and the Theory of Evolution.

Thank you for answering the "If evolution is true, why are their still apes?" question. I have asked this question of several dozen evolutionists(only a few of them were laymen(sp?)) and none of them have known the answer. I figured the answer out years ago. You'd htink they'd have figured out the answer long before I did.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>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.</STRONG>

All assumptions...

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>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.</STRONG>

Actually, No. 1 is an assumption, not a fact. Theoretically, all modern creatures descended from a common ancestor. As a scientist, I'm amazed you are confusing scientific theory with scientific law(though, I must admit, I'm more surprised that you are doing that than that an evolutionist is doing that). Newton's Law of Gravity is exactly that. A Scientific law. It has been proven true through empirical evidence. Micro-evolution does have empirical evidence to support it. However, macro-evolution does not have empirical evidence. It is an assumption. Thus, it is "In theory, all modern organisms descended from a common ancestor." We have no way to observe what happened 4000-howevermanymillion years ago. We merely assume(theorize) based on what facts we do have. The facts that we have are the fossils. These facts can be interpreted in different ways. The theories of relativity are theories because they have not been proven true by a load of empirical evidence like Newton's law of gravity.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>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. </STRONG>

I agree here. They are theories and many different opinions and ideas come out to explain these things. The fact I agree on this does not mean that I believe evolution is true, it merely means that I agree that on how the scientific process leads to various opinions and ideas to explain the same thing.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>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. </STRONG>

Natural Selection is adaptation. Example: The moths mentioned earlier. The ones with the predominate gene for darker color survived because they had the color that benifited them most. The lighter color died out because of it. As a species, they adapted. THey, however, did not evolve into a new genus, or even a new species.

Unless you have already explained it in a later post(which means I'll read it when I get to that post), please explain what "genetic drift" is.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>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. </STRONG>

Macroevolution takes so long that it would require a few hundred generations to study it. There won't be enough relevant empirical evidence until maybe the next millenium.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>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.</STRONG>

Macro-evolution(as I understand it) is evolution on a large scale dealing with the change of one species/genus into a different species/genus. If this is not macro evolution, then I would like to know what term does apply to this so that I might use the correct term.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>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. </STRONG>

The idea of fossils of transitional forms is logical, especially considering how slow evolution is. The so-called transitional forms depicting the evolution of humans are examples of this, theoretically. However, I have seen as much, or more, "proof" that these transitional forms are 100% ape(or human, depending on the particular skeleton). Obviously, this data can be interpretted in such ways as to support both ideas. Thus, this data must be thrown out as ambiguous and useless.

If I said, "Your hair looks lousy today." you would probably(though not necessarily) assume that I meant "Your hair looks really bad today." However, the sentence "Your hair looks lousy today" is ambiguous. It could mean "Your hair looks like it is infested with lice today" or "Your hair looks really bad today" or both. Thus, you, at the most consider that one of those is probably true, but you must gather more information on the subject in order to know the actual meaning. How do you do this? Well, in the case of the hair, you can go look in a mirror and find out. With these so-called "transitional forms" it is not so easy. One would have to go back in time and observe them as they were at that time when they were alive. You would, in fact, have to start observing long before they came to be and continues observing long after they ceased to exist. Since that cannot be done, the ambiguity can not be removed; thus, the data is unusable as proof of anything.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>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 </STRONG>

*points to her comments on ambiguity*

[ 09-06-2001: Message edited by: Sailor Saturn ]

Darkpoet drinks another Guinness and starts to understand, this thread.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>@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. </STRONG>

One specific Creationism theory I know if is the Mature Earth creation theory. That is the idea that the Earth was created at least 4000 years ago(depending on how long Adam & Eve were in the garden) and that all fossils and such were already in the ground and all that. I personally think this is just a way to avoid the facts(merely the timetables in which creation occured, not whether or not evolution occured).

I believe that the Biblical account of creation is temporaly figurative. I believe that each day represents an unset amount of time. I have also noticed that this account of creation fits directly with the geologic column(taking out evolution, but leaving in the fossil record, of course). If I had a good chart of the geologic column, I could type up a comparison of the Biblical ac**** with the geologic column. One thing I would like to point out about this is that the coordination is too much of a coincidence for it to not mean something, especially considering that the majority of the coordination(creation days 1-5 and the millions(billions? trillions?) of years between the approximated beginning of the universe(or just planet Earth?) and the first humans took place before the existance of man and even longer before written history.

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
<STRONG>Wow! One of the few times I get to agree with fable. </STRONG>

We all make mistakes.

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
<STRONG>I can't imagine how one would produce any physical proof of creationism or the resurrection of Jesus. I think these events ultimatly fall into the "Miracle" or "The bible says so" category.
I guess thats why believers have to have "faith".</STRONG>

No matter what you believe, whether it is that evolution is true or that creation is true, you must have faith that you are right. That and knowledge of what you believe are absolutely necessary if you're going to give a compelling arguement.

Unlucky for you, I know what I believe and I have faith that I am right.

Unlike creationists, I do not believe that the 6 days creation is 100% literal. I believe it is figurative language simplified for the limited minds of the Isrealites. However, I do not support thiestic evolution(or whatever it is called)(the idea that God created all organisms using evolution).

Originally posted by EMINEM:
<STRONG>I can't decide whether to call it a Lie or a Religion. Which term is stronger? Probably the former. In that case, let me state my opinion thus -

Evolution is a lie. Period.

</STRONG>

I wouldn't call it a lie, Eminem. It is a misconception and miscontruition(?) of the facts that do exist. The problem is that the debate between Evolution and creation is not done in a scientific way. In science, you come up with an idea, then try to prove it wrong. If you fail to prove it wrong, you have formulated a new theory that advances science. If you prove it wrong, you have learned that this is not the case, thus elliminating that posssiblitiy and you move on to the next possibility. Evolutionists and creationists, however, tend to try to prove themselves right and the other wrong.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Which doesn't seem to contradict anything in Evolutionist theory. I still don't see why fundamentalist Christians therefore get so hot under the collar about Evolutionism. </STRONG>

You keep speaking of "fundamentalist Christians." It is good that you are specifying "fundamentalist" rather than lumping us all together under the term "Christians" in this. Most people wouldn't bother with that.

Fundamentalists in this area are extremists. They are extremem traditionalists("We've never done it that way before."~Their excuse to not change). In fact, if evolution were true, they wouldn't evolve merely because they were never like the "newly evolved form" before. They are also literalists. They take every(or nearly every) word in the Bible literally. This is not a good thing. The Bible uses a lot of figurative langauge. Not all people who believe in creation(and don't believe in evolution) are fundamentalists.

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
<STRONG>Well i don't plan to work in a gas station when i grow. Would you like to work in one?

Well do you need to be taught how to speak a language to be considered educated, but i guess you never have to learn maths, history, science, or geography. Afterall you're not going ot be doing anything with your life.</STRONG>

*refrains from hitting you with her glaive for fear of putting a dent in her glaive*

Evolution is a THEORY. A scientific theory to be exact. One need not know all the details of evolution to be a businessman/businesswoman, someone who works in the computer biz, actor, actress, etc. There are so many careers that don't require any knowledge whatsoever of evolution. I know it can be difficult and painful, but think before you post. You might get fewer flames.

Originally posted by Tom:
<STRONG>a big deal of evidence for evoulution comes from carbon dating.

It is a much used technique in science and i have never heard it disputed.

do you have any reasons for doubting it?</STRONG>

I have heard many arguements against carbon dating, mostly from creationists. I, however, do not believe much of what I hear from extreme creationists. I believe no more from them than I do from extreme evolutionists.

Originally posted by Tom:
<STRONG>A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches. Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Droughts thus favor birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years. (CP)</STRONG>

This is along the same lines of what Darwin observed. His first formulations of evolution(IIRC) are more along the lines of adaptation than the "origin of man" stuff. To keep things clear, you should avoid stating adaptation and evolution as one and the same.

CE and Fable...

There are three main origin theories.

1. Theistic evolution- Evolution happened just as supporters of naturalistic evolution believe but controlled by a supernatural being.

2. Naturalistic evolution- The origin of the universe happened 10 to 20 billion years ago. The earth coalesced about 4.5 billion years ago. Life subsequently began, probably as bacteria, and has been evolving ever since. The process of evolution has been driven by purely natural forces, without input from a God or a Goddess or multiple deities.

And

3. Creation science- Which has two subsets.

A) New Earth creationists- form the majority of creation scientists. They believe that the earth, its current life forms, and the rest of the universe were created by God, less than 10,000 years ago. Only very minor changes within various species have happened since creation; no new species have evolved or been created. This belief system is mainly promoted by people who believe in the inerrant truth of the Hebrew Scriptures (aka Old Testament) when interpreted literally.

B)Old Earth creationists- believe that geology, radiometric dating has shown that the world is billions of years old. However, they believe that God created the earth and the rest of the universe.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Young earthers are the people who interpret the bible's desription of the creation in a totally literal way, and thus draw the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old. This is, like Gwally posted earlier, a conclusion based on an 19th century theologist who counted the generations in OT backwards. </STRONG>

You said earlier that what "young earthers" believe is scary. How so?

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Now, to believe that god created life of earth, does not necessarily contradict evolution at all. Many christians I know (among them scientists in the life sciences) simply view evolution as the means or the method, god used for creating man, as well as the view big bang cosmology as describing the way god created the universe. </STRONG>

This is what I referred to in previous posts as "Theistic Evolution," though I am not sure this is the proper phrase for it.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>do clarify your view:
1. Do you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old?</STRONG>

I'm assuming that is the age put forth by the geologic column, fossil record, etc., so I'm answering yes.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>2. Do you belive in the abiogenesis? (ie how life began on earth, starting with anaerobic bacteria.</STRONG>

I have seen much proof that abiogenesis is falso and no proof that it is true.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>3. Do you believe in common ancestors for other species than man? (for instance, how about chimps and gorillas, between dogs and wolves, between wolves and whales)</STRONG>

Primapes(not including man), maybe. Dogs and wolves, yes. They are both canines. Just as domestic cats and "Big Cats" are both felines. Wolves and whales, no. That would require evolution to be factual and I don't believe that evolution is factual.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>4. Do you believe in a literal or a symbolic interpretation of the Noah's arch and the flood event?</STRONG>

I read an article a few years ago in which non-Christians scientists found evidence that at one time the earth was surrounded by a "layer of atmosphere" that consisted entirely of water, but that at some point, all that water "fell to the Earth" causing a flood.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>I ask these question simply to understand better exactly what about evolution you don't believe in, and if there is something else regarding the scientific description of the history of earth that you don't believe in. </STRONG>

I just want to say right here that I do believe the Big Bang is true. And I don't just mean in the way my bumper sticker says.

Bumper Sticker
<STRONG>I believe in the Big Bang Theory. God spoke and BANG it happened.</STRONG>

I do believe that, but I also believe the Big Bang Theory as put forth by science.

One arguement I have heard against the Big Bang Theory:

In the beginning their was nothing. Then nothing exploded. What is the result when nothing explodes? Nothing.

In response to this, scientists have theorized that something that doesn't conform to the laws of physics existed prior to the Big Bang. Some say a black hole. Some say God. Not all those who say God are Christians.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Also, a very central misunderstanding: evolution is not saying we're here by chance, and is not working by chance.
The chance element is that mutations and some other genetic variations can happen by chance. But selection then acts upon this variation, and selection is the very opposite of chance.

I'll post more on the transitial fossiles/molecular data/evolution of complex organs later, but that something is complex is not evidence against evolution - the accumulated changes over 3.4 billion years are enough to create complex organs many times over. The eye has evolved 40 different times, and even today, there are 8 different basic structures of eyes.</STRONG>

One problem posed here is that there would be transitional forms leading up to our eyes that would be blind. How did they survive accordingly?

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Your command of English is rich in detail and exactly suited to your intent, @CE. Many English writers should only have that amount of skill.

I am also interested in Eminem's responses to your questions. Typically, he posts very brief, rather militant attacks, then responds after being questioned seriously with lengthy caution and backtracking. Like you, I felt his first, flip remarks about evolution were the response of a "young world" creationist. I still do, because he hasn't urged any opinions that contradict either his initial statement, or those impressions. But given time, if the topic keeps its focus, he still may.</STRONG>

It is an idiotic assumption to have assumed that Eminem was a "young earther" merely because he so vehemently believes that evolution is false.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Thanks for you replies, MM, that gives me a much clearer picture of what it is you actually despute and not. Still, a few questions about the arch event:
1. Do you belive that all now living species has sprung from the couples Noah brought on the arch in their present shape, or has evolution affected the species after the flood?
2. Do you believe extinct species, like trilobites or dinosaurs, were carried on the arch and became extinct afterwards, or do you belive the extinct species went extinct because they were not carried on the arch? Or do believe that trilobites and dinosaurs have never existed?</STRONG>

I'm not correcting you merely to correct you. I understand that English is not the native language of everyone and all that, but this is something at least somewhat important. An "arch" is a "two-dimensional" depiction of a dome, sorta. What you mean is the "ark" which is a box(a very large box in this case).

1.) Depends on the evolution you are talking about. Adaptation of a species to survive, yeah. Evolution of one species/genus into another, no.

2.)You left out an option. I believe that some extinct species went extinct prior to the flood. Others when the flood occurred. And the rest afterwards. It all depends on when they died out.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>You know, this would ring a lot more sincerely if you haven't first posted the following, in this same topic:

Now either your original, hardshell opinion is an accurate statement of your views--and it does indicate you've clearly thought out the issue, and drawn some decisive conclusions--or you haven't studied the issue much, and don't have opinions on it, as you've stated in your last post.

....Or, you have a habit of stating your honest, fundamentalist opinions, discovering that you're not in the majority on a forum of people who can post proofs against you, and backtrack swiftly with "friendly" disclaimers as protective coloration.

I previously had you pegged for Option #2, a person with an interesting viewpoint who was open to discussion, but after repeatedly seeing this kind of position shifting and change of topic and/or mood when the going gets tough, I'm inclined more to Option #3. Too bad, but it's your choice.</STRONG>

fable...I had you pegged as smarter than this...I admit that much of what Eminem has said has not been what one would call "sound arguement" against Evolution, but what right does that give you to verbally attack him. One does not need extensive knowledge of something to formulate an opinion. He knows what he knows and believes what he knows and what he knows is that God created humans. He obviously knows the basic idea of evolution(i.e., the we evolved from apes through chance mutations and natural selection) and firmly believes it is false. He doesn't need proof to back up what he believes because he is not trying to force you into believing what he believes. The question was asked whether or not you believe Evolution is true or false. He answered the question accordingly. Your blatant attacks upon him for this are uncalled for and uncivilized and definitely not something I would expect from one such as yourself, fable. It is true that one is likely to formulate better opinions and be better able to defend their stance on a subject the more knowledge they have of the subject, but that knowledge is not necessary for the initial forming of an opinion.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Quite so: Thank you, @Sleep. I feel that in a forum like this, if someone takes a strong position, it helps for them to defend it. When they suddenly change subjects or say their position is something else entirely, it prevents discussion from having any meaning.</STRONG>

Take into consideration that, in their mind, they have not necessarily changed what they are saying, merely how they are saying it. Do not rule out the possibility that you are misinterpretting what they are saying.