U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-21-2009, 06:08 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,191,700 times
Reputation: 13392

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Imagine there is a race going on, some people start when the pistol is fired, some start 20-30 seconds later. Eventually everybody should make it past the finish line, right? Why aren't the primitive men and/or apes that you suggest are our ancestors, who began the evolution process a bit later in the game, catching up and arriving at where we are now? If they were 1,500 years or 2,000 years late in regards to mutations, shouldn't they be catching up by now? We should be able to witness some amount of apes and primitive men arriving at the point where we are now at, or at the point where we were at 1,500 years ago (or however far ahead of them we presently are, they should be X years behind us, so they should now be where we were at X years ago), right?
The post above this one answers your question pretty well. eta: my last post before this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2009, 06:12 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,191,700 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
I am saying that the Big Bang and Evolution are both bunk. I've only encountered one or two scientists/teachers/professors who believed in either, saying nothing of both. My Chemistry professor did not believe in either, I don't believe my Physics teacher believed in either, my Chemistry teacher believed in both (if I recall correctly), and my Biology teacher certainly believed in evolution.
You can think ToE is bunk although that doesn't really affect the data/evidence. The people you've been encountering are obviously unaware of the evidence. I'm a chemist, clinical chemist so I have more of a physiology backgroud, and I can tell you that I know very little about evolution in comparison to an evolutionary biologist. I read what I can. We can't know everything, that's for sure.

Why are you ignoring the data I'm providing? I wish you would take a look at it.

Quote:
My Physics professor kept a bible with him and he and I used to discuss scripture, read from Revelation, Genesis, etc.
That's nice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 06:13 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 639,854 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post

“NGT” represents a point at which a new genetic trait is introduced to a population which through natural selection comes to be spread throughout that population to the point where it reaches fixation in the genome. From that point on it will be heritable by all the future generations of that population. Such an event can occur at any time, in any group, but due to the nature of biological reproduction and genetic heritability it can be propagated only “downstream” of the point at which it is introduced. So, the earlier in the process a new trait is acquired, the wider a cross-section of the final population it will be present in. Any traits acquired after that point will be found grouped into smaller and smaller cross-sections of the population and always completely contained within the groupings of earlier acquired traits. For example, in an evolutionary scenario we never expect to see something like this:

I understand the theory of evolution, we had required reading that entailed several books that were nothing but arguments for evolution (ironically these books were required for non-science classes, basically literature/liberal arts classes). I wonder why, if these "changes" can occur at any time, in any group, why don't we ever see any of it? Does it only happen when we're not looking?

I understand that simply because we don't see it happen doesn't mean it cannot happen or is not happening, but it does seem very unusual that there is never any record of such a thing happening. There are more instances of people claiming to have seen the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, than there are of people claiming to have seen evolution/changes in a group occur in their lifetime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 06:35 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,191,700 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
I understand the theory of evolution, we had required reading that entailed several books that were nothing but arguments for evolution (ironically these books were required for non-science classes, basically literature/liberal arts classes). I wonder why, if these "changes" can occur at any time, in any group, why don't we ever see any of it? Does it only happen when we're not looking?
To reiterate, it's a matter of life span. For higher animals that live for years, the process runs into the thousands of years. This is what the evidence shows. Given current technology, and providing we're still around for another 10 thousand years, I'm sure there will be data, just as there is data today. Of course, some folk will reject it because the time line is too long. For species with short life spans, we indeed see it before our eyes. Ever heard of HIV? or bacteria that are becoming resistant to antibiotics. Their turn over is quick. They adapt accordingly.

Quote:
I understand that simply because we don't see it happen doesn't mean it cannot happen or is not happening, but it does seem very unusual that there is never any record of such a thing happening. There are more instances of people claiming to have seen the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, than there are of people claiming to have seen evolution/changes in a group occur in their lifetime.
Well, none of us will ever see a primate evolve in our life time. Again, the life cycle is too long. It's not appropriate to make such comparisons, but for the sake of trying to grasp time lines, we can compare drosophila to humans...I don't know if I can calculate it. I believe drosophila have a 2 week life cycle. IIRC, and don't quote me on the exact numbers, I believe we're able to see evolutionary changes any where from 60 to 100 generations, which is a few years. Translating this to the human life cycle is not something I feel like doing but I'm sure you get the point.

Of course, I have to put forth the disclaimer that lab conditions are not representative of natural conditions so who knows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 639,854 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
To reiterate, it's a matter of life span. For higher animals that live for years, the process runs into the thousands of years. This is what the evidence shows. Given current technology, and providing we're still around for another 10 thousand years, I'm sure there will be data, just as there is data today. Of course, some folk will reject it because the time line is too long. For species with short life spans, we indeed see it before our eyes. Ever heard of HIV? or bacteria that are becoming resistant to antibiotics. Their turn over is quick. They adapt accordingly.
That's not due to evolution that's due to natural selection. The bacteria that cannot measure up are gone and don't survive to reproduce, while those that can resist antibiotics will survive and reproduce. However, this doesn't change the fundamental nature of what the organism is, it doesn't turn it into a new species. Bacteria are not going to evolve into birds, that one day evolve into birds that live on the surface of the water, that one day evolve into fish, that one day evolve into creatures that move onto land that one day evolve into apes that eventually evolve into people.

The validity of natural selection does nothing to make evolution valid or true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 07:01 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,191,700 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
That's not due to evolution that's due to natural selection. The bacteria that cannot measure up are gone and don't survive to reproduce, while those that can resist antibiotics will survive and reproduce.

However, this doesn't change the fundamental nature of what the organism is, it doesn't turn it into a new species. Bacteria are not going to evolve into birds, that one day evolve into birds that live on the surface of the water, that one day evolve into fish, that one day evolve into creatures that move onto land that one day evolve into apes that eventually evolve into people.

The validity of natural selection does nothing to make evolution valid or true.
Now I can't tell if you're playing poe. Are you? Natural selection is or at least, a component of evolution. And you haven't read anything I've posted nor have you checked out the links. It has been shown why, according to ToE, bacteria or humans or flie will never evolve upstream.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 639,854 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
Now I can't tell if you're playing poe. Are you? Natural selection is or at least, a component of evolution. And you haven't read anything I've posted nor have you checked out the links. It has been shown why, according to ToE, bacteria or humans or flie will never evolve upstream.
Playing poe? Natural selection is something that makes sense, that can be readily witnessed in any scientific observation of a sample group or some specific population of test subjects, and it doesn't contradict scripture. There's a reason why natural selection is regarded as scientific law while evolution is only at the level of theory.

The issue is not whether natural selection does or does not occur, I believe it does. The issue is whether natural selection will, over time, lead to entirely new species. I do not believe that it will. An enhanced human with better vision or auditory capabilities would still be a human. A population of tuberculosis bacteria with resistance to antibiotics would still be the same species of bacteria. It's not going to become some entirely new super germ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 07:32 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,191,700 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Playing poe? Natural selection is something that makes sense, that can be readily witnessed in any scientific observation of a sample group or some specific population of test subjects, and it doesn't contradict scripture. There's a reason why natural selection is regarded as scientific law while evolution is only at the level of theory.
Yes, I'm pretty sure you're playing poe...pulling my leg. If not, please read what I posted (for you) about the terms law, theory, etc.

Quote:
The issue is not whether natural selection does or does not occur, I believe it does. The issue is whether natural selection will, over time, lead to entirely new species. I do not believe that it will. An enhanced human with better vision or auditory capabilities would still be a human. A population of tuberculosis bacteria with resistance to antibiotics would still be the same species of bacteria. It's not going to become some entirely new super germ.
We already know of several new species of bacteria. At this point, I'm quite sure you know this as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 07:42 PM
 
239 posts, read 309,111 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by fungame Dóh, next you'll be tellin' me that it also is impossible to become addicted to sex or food.
Since addiction is a-priori not relevant to a species' survival becoming addicted can only be a sign of stupidity.
Um if you're talking about psychological addiction, which has NOTHING to do with physiological addiction, you can become addicted to cars, tv, food, music, religion, reading, etc etc etc as well...which would lead me to ask, errr whats your point?

Btw what does evolution have to do with weed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 07:43 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 639,854 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
Yes, I'm pretty sure you're playing poe...pulling my leg. If not, please read what I posted (for you) about the terms law, theory, etc.


We already know of several new species of bacteria. At this point, I'm quite sure you know this as well.

That doesn't mean they just formed or they were something else that became what they are now, that just means we didn't know of their existence prior to now.

I am sure there are species that are presently thought extinct, that will wind up being discovered in some remote area. The Goblin shark immediately comes to mind. People used to think it was extinct, but now we know better.

The discovery of a new species does not suffice as proof of evolution's validity, it probably means that it was previously unknown and has finally become known.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top