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, 08:16 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,191,700 times
Reputation: 13392

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
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.
So, a bacteria that exists today with an enzyme to handle products made by humans have always existed and we just didn't know it?

Quote:
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.
This does nothing to refute evolution though.

Quote:
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.
Here's the link I was worried about posting earlier. I'm sure you will enjoy it.
The evidence for evolution., Since it comes up... over and over... - Christian Forums
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2009, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,115 posts, read 9,199,435 times
Reputation: 8988
Intoxication by narcotics and non-alcoholic methods reduces the productive value of socialist slaves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 12:55 AM
 
Location: Pensacola, Fl
656 posts, read 951,378 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
I could disprove evolution for you but maybe you should look at OhioUberAlles' post right above this one that you posted. The whole "there are no intermediate stages of evolution observable today" is half of my argument.
Platypus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
You never answered the issue of why we aren't seeing evolution right now... Surely some monkeys would have started evolving in a staggered fashion... If you believe we are the product of evolution, say the monkeys that became what we are today began evolving 150,000 years ago, and some other monkeys started about 149,000 years ago. Shouldn't the ones that got the late state be catching up by now? We should be able to see it, right? Unless you believe in punctuated equilibrium, which is really something of a cop-out.
Your making the assumption that humans are the 'goal' of evolution (which is not true in the least). All it takes is one mutation in the encoding of DNA to completely change - for better or for worse - an entire species. Evolution has no goal and depending on the mutation, the said species can either become extinct or become more prominent. We have a common ancestor with monkeys, but we split after that (like two different paths). Monkey's adapt to their environment and mutations occur that will either enable the monkey to better adapt or cause them to lag behind. It is through natural selection that we see this happening. An enabling mutation will cause the monkey (or said species) to better adapt to their environment. It's not a game of 'catch up'; it's a game of who can adapt to their environment better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Once I was beyond the junior high level, I've never encountered a science teacher, science professor, or a scientist who actually believed in evolution. My Chemistry professor did not believe in evolution and neither did my Physics professor. As for high school, my chemistry teacher remarked I was the best chemistry student of all of his chemistry students of all of his classes. The last science professor/teacher/etc (who I interacted with/had teach a class I was in) I recall who believed in evolution was a biology teacher from high school.
If you want to deny and reject facts (along with your 'science' teachers) then that's fine with me; it's your opinion, your entitled to it.

Thing is, no 'true' scientist believes anything is 100% beyond a doubt right; they are always looking for someone to prove them wrong. Scientist would be thrilled if some empirical physical evidence came forth contrary to the status quo. Thing with creationism is, you cannot prove one bit of it; it's FAITH-based and the reason why it's not taught as a science but as a philosophy. On the other hand, you can go out into nature and witness evolution to a certain degree. You can see the commonalities (and differences) between species and see the 'intermediate' species that are oh so hard to find. Take annelids (worms) and arthropods (bugs) for example; they have a common ancestor. Off the top of my head the things they have in common is that they both have segmented bodies and nephridia type organisms. Take a zoology course sometime, it's very interesting and fun to see the commonalities between completely different organisms and species. The only way to enlighten yourself is to open up your mind to the possibilities my friend.

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?
Again, your suggesting that the goal of evolution is humans. It can be compared to a race in some sense, but the thing is that once the starting point has been left, the racees head in different directions; sometimes similar, sometimes opposites.

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?
Mutations occur all the time, but it's rare for mutations that benefit to occur (that's why it's so amazing that we have such a variety of species!). You have to think logically about it. If there are 50 000 monkeys, and one of them has a mutation for longer arms, how long do you think it's going to take for that mutation to spread throughout the gene pool? The monkey would have to have children with another, then the offspring might express the gene for longer arms. If they don't they'd be only carriers. Then, they would have to have children (if they survive that is) with another monkey, pass on the gene for longer arms and meet with another monkey that might have the gene for longer arms also (it'd be a cousin or distant relative). The monkey that would have longer arms (from the father or mother) would do better in the environment because they'd have a longer reach to other branches and it would aid them in escape and getting food (but it's not a guarantee that they will survive). If they have offspring the offspring would be carriers but they also might not express the gene (greater chance of death) and they'd have to have offspring that would later find a mate that was also a carrier. I'm not even taking into the account that different sects would migrate to other places and such. Do you see why mutations and such take thousands of years and cannot be witnessed in a single lifetime? It's naive to think that the reason evolution doesn't exist is because you can't see it happening before your very eyes. Evolution is a process (that is happening today, right now in fact) that is very systematic and constant, yet sporadic and spontaneous. You can look back at species and such and look how they have evolved throughout the years (sharks are a prime example).

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
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.
See above statement for answer.

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.
How do you believe in natural selection and not in evolution? One goes with the other. If you believe evolution to be invalid, then natural selection is too; and vice versa.

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.

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.
Evolution is also something that makes sense, but you seem to completely reject it. It is through evolution that natural selection is able to occur. How do you suppose a human with enhanced vision or auditory capabilities obtained such? It is through a mutation that it occurs (evolution) and natural selection is able to take place. Over time (and after a series of mutations) new species arise. At one point in time, humans may be the ancestor species for an entirely new and different series of species. We would then be the common ancestor of said species. It's happened time and time again, and we are no different in that respect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 01:17 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,514,836 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by fungame
Quote:
Um if you're talking about psychological addiction, which has NOTHING to do with physiological addiction
Every addiction is psychological. Addicts are convinced that they need the poison they are addicted to while in reality they do not.
In short: addicts simply are convinced that they can't survive without their addiction, or that life simply is not worth living without the garbage they're addicted to.

Quote:
Btw what does evolution have to do with weed?
Evolution simply proves that addiction is a sign of stupidity.
Addicts are unable to adapt to their environment; they would die (or at least kill themselves) if whatever they're addicted to would somehow disappear from their environment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 01:29 AM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 639,854 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post

How do you believe in natural selection and not in evolution? One goes with the other. If you believe evolution to be invalid, then natural selection is too; and vice versa.
If it were true/real/correct, evolution would require natural selection, but natural selection does not have to be accompanied by evolution. It is not possible to believe in evolution without believing in natural selection. It is possible to believe in natural selection without believing in evolution.

The evolution lobby says that natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. I believe that natural selection is a reality but it does not result in evolution (divergence of species into separate/new species, emergence of new species, etc).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 01:41 AM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 639,854 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
Thing with creationism is, you cannot prove one bit of it; it's FAITH-based and the reason why it's not taught as a science but as a philosophy.
I've had more creationism come from the science classes (virtually all creationism) I was in than from the philosophy classes (basically no creationism, all evolution). Most of the arguments for evolution that I was exposed to were in literature classes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 01:48 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,514,836 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles
Quote:
I've had more creationism come from the science classes (virtually all creationism) I was in than from the philosophy classes (basically no creationism).
LoL, only in America can you say this with a straight face and believe it. In Europe you will not find a scientist (or anyone else who studied medicine) who doesn't support the evolution theory.
But if you do find a European 'scientist' who refutes the evolution theory, it will be on religious grounds and not on the account of science.

Last edited by Tricky D; 02-22-2009 at 02:07 AM.. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 08:15 AM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,191,700 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
I've had more creationism come from the science classes (virtually all creationism) I was in than from the philosophy classes (basically no creationism, all evolution). Most of the arguments for evolution that I was exposed to were in literature classes.
What was your college major? You seem to have taken a number of science classes that usually aren't required for non-science majors (from what I know).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 08:18 AM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,191,700 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles LoL, only in America can you say this with a straight face and believe it. In Europe you will not find a scientist (or anyone else who studied medicine) who doesn't support the evolution theory.
But if you do find a European 'scientist' who refutes the evolution theory, it will be on religious grounds and not on the account of science.
While we probably do have more anti-evolution scientists in the US, they aren't that commmon. They make up a very small minority but media hype and politics tends to spot light the fringe.

And then there are those anti-evolution folk that like to call themselves scientists when they're really not...not natural scientists at least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2009, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 639,854 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
What was your college major? You seem to have taken a number of science classes that usually aren't required for non-science majors (from what I know).

Business Administration, they made us take a year of science, math, and literature classes as a general requirement, along with 1-2 years of some other things (theology/religious studies, philosophy, etc).
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