U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Unread 05-12-2008, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
22,999 posts, read 15,670,562 times
Reputation: 9364
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
And in a million furthur years of scientific study, having (supposedly) stripped the universe of everything except what you can see with a microscope, what will it have gained you? Religious people live longer, have better outlooks on life, and tend to not be so pessimistic and skeptical of everything (including their fellow human beings). You act as if science is the one thing every human should pour their heart into. If by "that sort of stuff" you mean things like love, mercy, and goodwill, you are creating a sad humanity indeed. Not to mention that most of the leaders who killed civilian populations were atheist DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER
Ataturk, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot. Guess they were 'thinning the herd' for evolution?
That old atheists are murderers BS again? I guess you not only don't post much in this forum, you don't read much of it either...That topic has been beaten to death already. I'm not sure about the others, but Ataturk is described as a nominal Muslim, and Hitler was Christian, but never mind that. How do you explain away the almost billion killed in the various religious wars over history, and which are still going on today.

Creationism, like everything else religious is nothing more than myth, smoke and mirrors. I want no part of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 05-12-2008, 12:21 PM
 
4,524 posts, read 3,131,255 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Wrong. People the world over (since the dawn of time) have believed we were created, and did not happen by chance. You would like to believe that if you destroyed every bible on earth, everyone would conveniently forget they believed in anything, and would all become hardcore atheists.
I'll stand by my claim that the creationists being discussed in this thread rely entirely on the Bible as their only source of evidence. There's no other evidence that their conception of god created the world in 6 days.

Sure, some people would continue to believe what they currently do (a story they took from the Bible) even if those Bibles subsequently disappeared. That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I said that their source and only evidence was the Bible, which would be true even if the Bibles then went away. There's just no other reason to believe in creationism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-13-2008, 01:12 PM
 
1,009 posts, read 1,357,052 times
Reputation: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
I'll stand by my claim that the creationists being discussed in this thread rely entirely on the Bible as their only source of evidence. There's no other evidence that their conception of god created the world in 6 days.

Sure, some people would continue to believe what they currently do (a story they took from the Bible) even if those Bibles subsequently disappeared. That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I said that their source and only evidence was the Bible, which would be true even if the Bibles then went away. There's just no other reason to believe in creationism.
Then take it further. Take away even the memory of the bible. There was no such thing. People would still believe we were created. World religions (especially Christianity) have seen most of their growth through word-of-mouth (preaching). So you could make the argument that if nobody ever heard of God, or even the idea of him (for example we were in the matrix, and our brains were all scrubbed), that there would cease to be any belief in a higher power that created us. But I don't think that's true, considering the power that religion wields in this world over the emotions and thoughts of humans. I believe there is something in nearly every person that makes them question their own existence, and not everyone comes to the conclusion that we must have arrived here by random chance. I believe even if our brains were scrubbed ten thousand years ago, by this current date we would have massively popular world religions again. It's not something you can ever remove from humanity, unless you could find a way to remove the gene that makes humans inquisitive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-13-2008, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
92 posts, read 130,783 times
Reputation: 51
Well, if I understand you correctly, someone like Dr Francis Collins could not have headed the Human Genome Project since he is a devoted Christian. Or Dr Polkinghom could not be a Theoretical Physicist and a member of the clergy. Generalizations from any perspective never advance an argument very far. By the way, I am an agnostic. I know there are mysteries to which I don't have pat answers. I prefer to listen to such as physicists Brian Greene, Paul Davies, and Steven Weinberg who admit that there are still mysteries which cannot be explained.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-13-2008, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
7,555 posts, read 5,515,699 times
Reputation: 3047
Quote:
Then take it further. Take away even the memory of the bible. There was no such thing. People would still believe we were created. World religions (especially Christianity) have seen most of their growth through word-of-mouth (preaching). So you could make the argument that if nobody ever heard of God, or even the idea of him (for example we were in the matrix, and our brains were all scrubbed), that there would cease to be any belief in a higher power that created us. But I don't think that's true, considering the power that religion wields in this world over the emotions and thoughts of humans. I believe there is something in nearly every person that makes them question their own existence, and not everyone comes to the conclusion that we must have arrived here by random chance. I believe even if our brains were scrubbed ten thousand years ago, by this current date we would have massively popular world religions again. It's not something you can ever remove from humanity, unless you could find a way to remove the gene that makes humans inquisitive.
If I may, I believe the point was that without having the first few chapters of Genesis and a particular interpretation of those chapters, and only looking at the physical evidence, no one would come to the conclusion of an earth created 6000 years ago and completely flooded withing the last 4000 years. Talk radio host John Stewart asked John Morris (a geological engineer at the ICR) if he or any of his associates had ever heard of a scientists who became convinced that the earth and the universe is only thousands of years old based on the scientific evidence, without any reference to a particular interpretation of the Bible. Morris answered honestly, “No.” Stewart has since asked the same question of several other prominent young-universe proponents, and the answer has been consistent, "no."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-13-2008, 05:59 PM
 
1,009 posts, read 1,357,052 times
Reputation: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra View Post
If I may, I believe the point was that without having the first few chapters of Genesis and a particular interpretation of those chapters, and only looking at the physical evidence, no one would come to the conclusion of an earth created 6000 years ago and completely flooded withing the last 4000 years. Talk radio host John Stewart asked John Morris (a geological engineer at the ICR) if he or any of his associates had ever heard of a scientists who became convinced that the earth and the universe is only thousands of years old based on the scientific evidence, without any reference to a particular interpretation of the Bible. Morris answered honestly, “No.” Stewart has since asked the same question of several other prominent young-universe proponents, and the answer has been consistent, "no."
Oh, I don't believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. My beef is with the origin of life in general, and the lack of explanation for this. Granted, with millions of years to adapt and change, a creature could possibly change into something else. However the creature had to begin somewhere in the first place. And every major 'adaptation' had to begin in ONE creature, and that one creature would have to mate with another creature which had functioning <insert feature>. Then, said feature could grow and change within the animal community. But how do two creatures adapt the exact same mutation (genetically, so that it could be passed on.) For example a photosensitive patch with a functioning nerve leading to the main nervous system. Two creatures both developed this 'first eye' at the same time, in the same region, and mated? Once the eye exists, it's plausible that it changes over time. But it has to exist first in two creatures, who then mate.

Evolutionists like to show graphs of one creature, and in between there are several morphing stages, and then the final outcome is shown in the last creature. It seems to 'make sense.' However you could produce a graph of a male 'morphing' into a female and eventually losing male genitalia and features. That doesn't mean it actually happened that way. Every single in-between creature should exist somewhere in the fossil record. Apparently only 'before' and 'after' fossils are abundant.

If random mutations of one creature, at a genetic level, could be passed on through future generations successfully and frequently.... Then good, bad, and neutral features MUST be passed on this way, frequently. There should be all types of bozo creatures walking around with useless skin tags, extra feet poking from their heads, etc. Not all of these creatures would die immediately, they would continue to mate and produce ridiculous offspring, which we would now see today. Efficiency is NOT an attribute of nature, consider some creatures lay thousands of eggs only to have a few survive. Every creature is NOT the most efficient or adaptable that it could be, yet the whole system has perfect feedback. One can understand that if deer eat all the grass in an area, the next generation die off from lack of grass. In higher forms there is no self-limitation, it is the environment which limits a species. However something like a virus should not 'know' that it must be self-limiting, but it is. A virus which continued to kill everything living on the planet would be a very efficient, very evolved virus. There is nothing to stop a virus from randomly 'mutating' to every living mammal and killing it, yet viruses (even mega-viruses like the plague) will only kill a third of a given population. Everything fits within the puzzle and knows it's own boundaries, and shows a 'higher design' which is more than just simple feedback loops.

Evolution should never stop, we should have super-creatures with impervious skin and thousand-year lifespans, we have already had millions of years of so-called evolution, and yet the highest form of life (humans) can be killed by most creatures on the planet, and is only able to defend itself through out-thinking other creatures. I guess the next stage will be delicate butterflies with huge brains that take over other creatures minds. Evolution (as it stands) just strikes me as very inadequate to explain either the emergence of life in general, the emergence of new physical features which were not present in previous creatures (but are only useful features!), the propagation of new features by anything other than an asexual creature, and the current thinking creatures upon earth.

There is no reason to deduce that a creature should form a nervous system and begin thinking, when it should instead form bigger claws, tougher skin, and produce more offspring. There is no reason to believe evolution "strips away" the useless features of a creature, simply through instant death of all inefficient results.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-13-2008, 06:40 PM
 
2,633 posts, read 2,977,004 times
Reputation: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Oh, I don't believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. My beef is with the origin of life in general, and the lack of explanation for this. Granted, with millions of years to adapt and change, a creature could possibly change into something else. However the creature had to begin somewhere in the first place. And every major 'adaptation' had to begin in ONE creature, and that one creature would have to mate with another creature which had functioning <insert feature>. Then, said feature could grow and change within the animal community. But how do two creatures adapt the exact same mutation (genetically, so that it could be passed on.) For example a photosensitive patch with a functioning nerve leading to the main nervous system. Two creatures both developed this 'first eye' at the same time, in the same region, and mated? Once the eye exists, it's plausible that it changes over time. But it has to exist first in two creatures, who then mate.
nope, just one creature develops the mutation and mates with the same species. The genes are still homologous allowing a good or neutral mutation to eventually become part of the gene pool

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Evolutionists like to show graphs of one creature, and in between there are several morphing stages, and then the final outcome is shown in the last creature. It seems to 'make sense.'
Right, ive no idea what you mean by morphing

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
However you could produce a graph of a male 'morphing' into a female and eventually losing male genitalia and features. That doesn't mean it actually happened that way. Every single in-between creature should exist somewhere in the fossil record. Apparently only 'before' and 'after' fossils are abundant.
Asexual(ie bacteria)=>hermaphrodite(ie earthworm)=>sexual(ie us)

Both sexual and asexual reproduction have their pros and cons and if you have never seen a hermaphrodite species(ie the in between) then you have lived under a rock

EDIT: I take that back, many hermaphroditic species like slugs actually live under rocks
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
If random mutations of one creature, at a genetic level, could be passed on through future generations successfully and frequently.... Then good, bad, and neutral features MUST be passed on this way, frequently.
Pretty much and they do

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
There should be all types of bozo creatures walking around with useless skin tags, extra feet poking from their heads, etc. Not all of these creatures would die immediately, they would continue to mate and produce rediculous offspring, which we would now see today.
An extra foot on the head would cause some serious troubles. Neutral changes are more along the lines of say mutations along the hypervariable regions of DNA which is something we encounter quite often

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Efficiency is NOT an attribute of nature
yes it is, resources are limited in nature so usually the more efficient creature will outsource the other and pass on its genes more often. Think why your body stays at a constant 37 degree celcius and why the pH along your body is so carefully controlled if you want to talk efficient


Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
consider some creatures lay thousands of eggs only to have a few survive. Every creature is NOT the most efficient or adaptable that it could be, yet the whole system has perfect feedback.
Your example is leaving out competition. Its survival of the fit enough to last until it reproduces but when we have 2 species competing for survival then the more efficient one will win out in the end.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
One can understand that if deer eat all the grass in an area, the next generation die off from lack of grass. In higher forms there is no self-limitation, it is the environment which limits a species. However something like a virus should not 'know' that it must be self-limiting, but it is.
No it isn't. Do you actually have any evidence that the virus is self-limiting? Because that sounds like a lie considering It never came up in microbiology and in epidemics those buggers tear into anyone or anything unless the organism has developed an immunity against the virus

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
A virus which continued to kill everything living on the planet would be a very efficient, very evolved virus.
NO NO NONONONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!! argh!!!!

Look, the virus or even some bacteria cannot survive on their own so they attack a host body but when the body dies it has no other choice but to move on to another one. Efficient viruses are not those that kill everything but rather those who can keep the organism alive long enough for it to be exposed to other organisms or even better. To be able to exist inside an organism for as long as possible such as TB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
There is nothing to stop a virus from randomly 'mutating' to every living mammal and killing it, yet viruses (even mega-viruses like the plague) will only kill a third of a given population.
Its called immunity which is the beauty of the variance given by sexual reproduction and some random mutation. The virus doesnt know when 67% of the population has died but rather it can't kill the remaining 33% because they have immune systems able to fend off the virus

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Everything fits within the puzzle and knows it's own boundaries, and shows a 'higher design' which is more than just simple feedback loops.
Only if you ignore whats really happening and inject some subjectivr opinions into the mix

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Evolution should never stop, we should have super-creatures with impervious skin and thousand-year lifespans, we have already had millions of years of so-called evolution
There are no shoulds in random mutation. NS selects the cards its dealt but it can do no more

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
and yet the highest form of life (humans) can be killed by most creatures on the planet, and is only able to defend itself through out-thinking other creatures. I guess the next stage will be delicate butterflies with huge brains that take over other creatures minds.
Im sorry but what makes humans the highest forms of life? Because the bests at surviving have always been microscopic bacteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Evolution (as it stands) just strikes me as very inadequate to explain either the emergence of life in general
Thats because it doesn't

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
the emergence of new physical features which were not present in previous creatures (but are only useful features!), the propogation of new features by anything other than an asexual creature, and the current thinking creatures upon earth.
then please go to a lab and ask about speciation experiments because this is fact that can be confirmed in a lab.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
There is no reason to deduce that a creature should form a nervous system and begin thinking, when it should instead form bigger claws, tougher skin, and produce more offspring.
Again, there are no shoulds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
There is no reason to believe evolution "strips away" the useless features of a creature, simply through instant death of all inefficient results.
Yes there is, its called natural selection which is the simple deduction that when there are more creatures that can be sustained in an enviroment, the better adapted ones will fare better than the inefficient ones.

Last edited by coosjoaquin; 05-13-2008 at 06:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-13-2008, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,482 posts, read 7,901,769 times
Reputation: 3808
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Oh, I don't believe the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Out of curiosity, why do you think the Earth is as old as it is (assuming you take the current scientific evidence supporting a 4.5 billion year old Earth as the truth)??

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
My beef is with the origin of life in general, and the lack of explanation for this.
It seems like you've made the distinguishment between evolution and abiogenesis which is a good thing because neither try to explain one another. I don't want to turn this into a cosmological argument but to really compare evolution to abiogenesis is similar to trying to compare solar system formations with the Big Bang. They are not one in the same. Similarly, evolution comes AFTER first life and that is why there are many evolutionary scientists who still hold a very strong faith in God. Ken Miller is one of them and he probably wrote your high school biology book.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Granted, with millions of years to adapt and change, a creature could possibly change into something else. However the creature had to begin somewhere in the first place.
It's not a matter of a creature merely changing into something else. There is no macro-mutation within evolutionary theory. If, as you suggest, a dinosaur spontanously birthed a bird than what would the bird mate with? The difference is that the species changes as a whole due to environmental/ecological factors. It doesn't do it willingly but rather as a product of having the best genetics available. What you have to realize is that no one is suggesting a fish gave birth to something with legs that walked on land. That would be ludicrous, but it's often what is presented from the religious side as something that we "evolutionists" believe. Let me put this question your way so that perhaps you might understand it a little better. The English language has shown a tremendous amount of evolution in and of itself so who did the first English speakers speak with?? Do you see how it all works?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
And every major 'adaptation' had to begin in ONE creature, and that one creature would have to mate with another creature which had functioning <insert feature>.
That's also a bit of a misnomer. Let me try to put this in a simple way. Knowing that DNA is an instruction set, let's imagine that we have two different instruction sets to put together a certain brand of bicycle. Now, we have asexual reproduction to keep in mind and so let's think about this for a second. Every bicyle has its' own instruction set for being built a certain way and let's say that each bicycle reproduces a copy of itself with very similar instructions. However powerful the copying ability of DNA, it does not always get copied in 100% entirety. So, back to our bicycle, if it produces a set of instructions that are ever so slightly tweaked for a "better, smoother, faster ride" than the bicycle rider would be more prone to ride that one rather than one that is slightly hindered in some way. Therefore, the best bicycle is ridden the most.

However, that's only asexual reproduction. We can imagine that things would take an extraordinary amount of time in this regards to truly change. But, what if we took two sets of instructions for very similar bicycles and mixed the two? The order of construction would still be the same, but you would have more variation for producing both a better bicycle and a worse bicycle. However, over time, because the instructions are now able to replicate with two sets of "inputs" the rapid availability of change is not hard to see. You now have double the options and so things would become more and more fit. However, what people often fail to see is that the purpose for the bicycle may change. In other words, dirt roads that it once rode down may now be paved and require a different sort of "feel" for the riders comfort. So, a bicycle adapted to drive on a dirt road may not do as well on the pavement. At this point, the bicycle must either change as a result of the new environment or it will go extinct.

Now, keep in mind, this is not a conscious change but rather one that is taken out of necessity. The bicycles that show the slightest bit of "genetic" favoritism to riding on pavement would probably be picked over the ones that didn't and so the ones with the better pre-disposed genetic abilities would also mate as the ones with worser abilities were slowly eliminated. Slight nuances, a slightly better feel or something would allow the rider to choose the better bicycle would all come into play.

Now, I want to make it clear that nature does the selecting unlike our fictional bike rider. I'm merely trying to use something easy to visualize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Then, said feature could grow and change within the animal community. But how do two creatures adapt the exact same mutation (genetically, so that it could be passed on.) For example a photosensitive patch with a functioning nerve leading to the main nervous system. Two creatures both developed this 'first eye' at the same time, in the same region, and mated? Once the eye exists, it's plausible that it changes over time. But it has to exist first in two creatures, who then mate.
This is another misnomer but I can understand a bit of the confusion in all of this. It's not necessarily so that two creatures developed an "eye" at the same time and then mated because they both had eyes. That'd be like saying people with six fingers only mate with those who have six fingers. Regardless, what you are referring to is convergent evolution and it's actually more likely that creatures with one photosensitive cell mated with creatures that had no photosensitive cells. Yet, as time wore on and those with photosensitive cells became better at surviving their environment, those without light cells would slowly die off. However, don't get confused by this, because you also have to remember that each ecosystem is inherently different and so while there might be a necessity for one particular type of cell to develop an eye (as a result of natural selection and survival of the fittest) it doesn't mean that it was a necessity all over the world. Hence, we still have certain bacteria and other things that do not have photosensitive cells. From there, it's not hard to imagine how two photo cells would be better than one and three would be better than two and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, you must keep in mind the necessity for it to change within a certain ecosystem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Evolutionists like to show graphs of one creature, and in between there are several morphing stages, and then the final outcome is shown in the last creature. It seems to 'make sense.' However you could produce a graph of a male 'morphing' into a female and eventually losing male genitalia and features. That doesn't mean it actually happened that way. Every single in-between creature should exist somewhere in the fossil record. Apparently only 'before' and 'after' fossils are abundant.
Let's go back to our bicycles. Your claim is that for each variation in our bicycles we should be able to bury them in the ground for several million years, pull them up, and be able to find every single bicycle that was different. In fact, wouldn't it be more likely that we are able to distinguish those bicycles with the greatest amount of change? Perhaps in one strata we might find a bicycle with dirt tires, and then in the next strata we might find one with one dirt tire and one street tire, and in the next we might find both street tires. That would show a very clear, linear progression of advancement, would it not? We wouldn't expect to examine each tires individual grooves from every single generation. Number one, it would be almost impossible, and number two, we wouldn't be able to distinguish one bicycle from another. So, it's more of a benefit for sanity that we do not have EVERY single generation. Rather, we do have an extraordinary amount of fossils in which we find obvious changes but not so much that we can't distinguish it from an evolutionary predecessor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
If random mutations of one creature, at a genetic level, could be passed on through future generations successfully and frequently.... Then good, bad, and neutral features MUST be passed on this way, frequently.
They ARE passed on down the line. All the good, bad, and neutral are consistently passed down! The reason why you don't get it is because most of the bad ones hinder reproductive success and so they become recessive genes. Typically the recessive genes are not much to worry about because it takes two "pairs" of them (one from mother and one from father) to make it a dominant gene. That's simple genetics but it's also what makes inbreeding so dangerous. If someone from the same family has the same recessive genes (most of our families' do, go to any reunion ) and they were to meet, than those "bad" genes stand a much better chance at becoming dominant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
There should be all types of bozo creatures walking around with useless skin tags, extra feet poking from their heads, etc.
Not true. Only if the embryological carrying capacity of the mother and/or the species was able to support it. More than likely, something this disastrous would not survive the embryological stage. Modern day medicine has allowed for more of this, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Not all of these creatures would die immediately, they would continue to mate and produce ridiculous offspring, which we would now see today.
Not to sound rude or callous, but how often do you see handicapped people finding lifetime mates? I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but the chances of it happening are often very slim, right? Now, that's the human race where we are compassionate and care for one another. We have parents that would probably (and hopefully) take care of us throughout much of our lives. However, what of the animal born in a kill or be killed world? What do you think the chances are of it reaching an age of maturity to even have a female produce with it? Keep in mind that many females are often very sexually selective in nature as well as the "human world." In fact, if high school is any litmus test, I'd say the females in the animal kingdom are more picky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Efficiency is NOT an attribute of nature, consider some creatures lay thousands of eggs only to have a few survive. Every creature is NOT the most efficient or adaptable that it could be, yet the whole system has perfect feedback.
You're absolutely right. Every creature is not ultimately efficient but you also have to recognize that with your example of creatures that lay thousands of eggs, that a thousand eggs is better than 999 eggs and 999 eggs is better than 998 eggs. Yet, there is a certain amount of equilibrium to be found in nature as well in which there may be some variation to eggs that are layed (and yes, obviously the ones with more eggs have a better chance of surviving) but it's not really necessary. It's what they call a period of stassis in which things are very well suited to their environment and are not sufficiently pressured enough to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
One can understand that if deer eat all the grass in an area, the next generation die off from lack of grass. In higher forms there is no self-limitation, it is the environment which limits a species.
That is the beauty of nature. Grass evolved on its' own playing field as well as deer. It's like an arms race. The deer eats the grass, the grass that lays the most seeds has a better chance at survival and so on and so forth. There is just as much evidence for flora evolution as there is fauna evolution and so the cycle is met.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
However something like a virus should not 'know' that it must be self-limiting, but it is. A virus which continued to kill everything living on the planet would be a very efficient, very evolved virus.
Not in an arms' race. Because of certain genetic variability among species, some may be more predisposed at having a certain immunological characteristic that fights the virus better than another person/creature. Those that survive also pass on that beneficial "mutation" for being able to fight the virus. Although there are very powerful viruses capable of eliminating massive populations, not everyone would die (more than likely) and even if they did, it'd just mean we were not adapted well enough to our environment. We would not be the "fittest" and so we would then become extinct ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
There is nothing to stop a virus from randomly 'mutating' to every living mammal and killing it, yet viruses (even mega-viruses like the plague) will only kill a third of a given population. Everything fits within the puzzle and knows it's own boundaries, and shows a 'higher design' which is more than just simple feedback loops.
I imagine it's not hard to "see" design at this point in the game. Everything looks so fitting and so survivable, but why shouldn't it be? It's only been about 3 billion years since life first started evolving so all living things should also show a certain propensity for warding off different environmental characteristics, but it doesn't mean we're efficient at fighting all of them!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Evolution should never stop, we should have super-creatures with impervious skin and thousand-year lifespans,
Why? What pressure is put on us to have thousand year lifespans and impervious skin? Last I checked, we had a population of over six billion and it seems we've done rather well with a global lifespan average of about fifty years old without impervious skin. However, you are correct, evolution does not ever stop. Yes, there are periods of stassis, but only until that stassic environment changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
we have already had millions of years of so-called evolution, and yet the highest form of life (humans) can be killed by most creatures on the planet, and is only able to defend itself through out-thinking other creatures.
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps developing brain power was a part of natural pressures that allowed us to avoid perils and dangers? Similarly, dolphins can be caught in tuna nets, but you can see they are otherwise very well adapted to their environments. Just because there was no need for them in the past to adapt to tuna nets doesn't mean they are evolutionarily inferior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
I guess the next stage will be delicate butterflies with huge brains that take over other creatures minds.
Why? What evolutionary necessity is there for butterflies to do such a thing? And even if they did, it would be the process of an extremely slow process to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Evolution (as it stands) just strikes me as very inadequate to explain either the emergence of life in general,
As I hope you are aware by now, it doesn't seek to explain the origins of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
the emergence of new physical features which were not present in previous creatures (but are only useful features!), the propagation of new features by anything other than an asexual creature, and the current thinking creatures upon earth.
Perhaps because you don't understand it as was made very well evidenced by your post. I'm not knocking you down, but you do seem to misunderstand it in entirety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
There is no reason to deduce that a creature should form a nervous system and begin thinking, when it should instead form bigger claws, tougher skin, and produce more offspring. There is no reason to believe evolution "strips away" the useless features of a creature, simply through instant death of all inefficient results.
It's all dependent on the environmental and climactic implications set upon the creature up to and including its' interaction with creatures of other types.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-16-2008, 03:06 PM
 
1,009 posts, read 1,357,052 times
Reputation: 573
Neither the time or inclination to multi-quote all of you, in every instance. However, I'll take some of the points you made and quote, and respond, but it's no wonder I avoid this forum, you guys have more free time on your hands than you know what to do with Even the politics forum is not this entrenched!

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
Out of curiosity, why do you think the Earth is as old as it is (assuming you take the current scientific evidence supporting a 4.5 billion year old Earth as the truth)??
Because science has explained beyond most doubt that it is. Science is very functional at explaining many things, which I stated in a previous post. Anyone who sees a fossil without even dating it, must know that everything is more than 6,000 years old. I don't even think most creationists believe in the young earth, it is only a few very vocal (very vocal) ones who have propagated this belief. A person can have a specific belief in the creation of the universe which still does not affect their belief in observable (and logically deduced) events.

I don't believe that all of evolution is logically deduced however, it is taking something which already exists and functions as a perfect system, and finding a reason it fits with evolution, even if it doesn't. I think evolutionary theory is still incomplete, and still just a theory. Scientists should be careful that they are not too clingy to one specific theory, and not every scientist is objective in their observations or conclusions. If you want a specific example of this, by all means google it for yourself. If it crops up while I'm watching the news, reading a magazine, or anywhere else, I'll be sure to make a note of it for you. I don't currently have a lot of post-it notes up around my computer just waiting for some upstart to ask a question about evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
It seems like you've made the distinguishment between evolution and abiogenesis which is a good thing because neither try to explain one another. I don't want to turn this into a cosmological argument but to really compare evolution to abiogenesis is similar to trying to compare solar system formations with the Big Bang. They are not one in the same. Similarly, evolution comes AFTER first life and that is why there are many evolutionary scientists who still hold a very strong faith in God. Ken Miller is one of them and he probably wrote your high school biology book.
Totally my bad, I sometimes encounter individuals who not only believe in evolution, but also believe that everything began through a random process of who-knows-what, and that there is not and will never be such a thing as a god. I usually have to address both issues with these people, and so I tend to throw that in with all arguments involving evolution. From now on let it be known that I do think we were created by something other than chance, and that if evolution works autonomously towards higher levels of development, it's because it was a system designed to do so. Evolution of life is like a self-unzipping winzip file that god double-clicked. It might take a few billion years, and he's just waiting for it to load. Something along those lines

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
They ARE passed on down the line. All the good, bad, and neutral are consistently passed down! The reason why you don't get it is because most of the bad ones hinder reproductive success and so they become recessive genes. Typically the recessive genes are not much to worry about because it takes two "pairs" of them (one from mother and one from father) to make it a dominant gene. That's simple genetics but it's also what makes inbreeding so dangerous.
The variety of traits passed down is not sufficient for my liking. What I mean by that is:
Assume billions of years. Assume each year saw millions of new creatures born. This is usually how everything is covered by evolution, simply that 'enough time allowed' will account for everything you see living. But it would also account for other creatures, for example on a large island and isolated, and also with very favorable living conditions, to inbreed like crazy and create a large population of creatures with at least a few 'useless' and 'ugly' features. This could be anything, I'm not going to create an example, use your imagination, nature sure does. I agree that a very unfavorable mutation, for example protruding bones in a creature that didn't normally have them, would cause infection and death, and that creature would not get very far. But an 'in-between' would still be passed on, because death would not keep the creature in check. Efficiency under favorable living conditions would not be as relevant. So these creatures are otherwise fine, but they have a very recognizably innefficient feature or mutation, passed along for millions of years. It remains there, it remains useless, and the creatures do quite well for themselves in their small environment. Cut to present day. We fly over said island, and the creatures are found thriving, running around with giant useless blue penises flopping around. All the creatures reproduce through another evolved means, but the penises (or whatever) are still there, visible to the human intelligence, and not necessarily getting in the way.

But we haven't found this. Apparently even 'slightly useless' features are rewarded with quick death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
If someone from the same family has the same recessive genes (most of our families' do, go to any reunion ) and they were to meet, than those "bad" genes stand a much better chance at becoming dominant.
There you go. I know it's not a scientific study that I did, but it's my train of thought which is not quite answered sufficiently. It's answered partially, but not fully. Natural selection does not look random at all in some cases. If anything life on this planet looks like a giant planned breeding program to create higher, better forms of life. I'm sure nature would have been happy with bacteria quietly splitting all over the planet. Since life 'naturally' forms a perfect, balanced system, then there is no logical reason for one bacteria to become all bad ass, and make the jump to a higher level that didn't formerly exist. There is also no way the bacteria could do this.

I say we section off a large part of the desert. Lets make it a few square miles. Then we'll make a giant petri dish sealed up inside. Include tons of organic matter of your choice, as long as it is sterile, and *might* resemble the matter on the earth a few billion years ago. Now insert a few different types of bacteria, and let them hash it out until they evolve. Be sure to set up a lot of cameras, because we'll soon have little trilobytes running around in there. Since the bacteria can't create their own organic matter, you'll have to keep adding more. That's fine, as long as it is completely sterile and free of higher life-forms. Now we continue the experiment, even for hundreds of years if we have to. Maybe we try different things to spark higher life, for example different types of organic matter, or electric shocks, or different temperature settings. We force the bacteria to evolve and adapt. The smart money says we will never have anything higher than bacteria living in that huge tank though. But yet EARTH could do it, why can't we?? Because it's freakin impossible, and deep down you know it. Just the same as no fish in tanks are going to change into unrecognizable creatures, and no squirrels locked up in a giant forest setting are going to grow huge, and start walking and talking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
NO NO NONONONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!! argh!!!!
Look, the virus or even some bacteria cannot survive on their own so they attack a host body but when the body dies it has no other choice but to move on to another one. Efficient viruses are not those that kill everything but rather those who can keep the organism alive long enough for it to be exposed to other organisms or even better. To be able to exist inside an organism for as long as possible such as TB.
Then the most ineffiecient viruses are the most deadly to the host. The virus doesn't keep a body count. Some tapeworms are very good at surviving without affecting the health of a person or animal, so what? My point was that there is nothing to stop a virus from killing every creature within a certain species, except that some are immune to it. Up with me so far? No creature is immune to everything. Surviving creatures are still open to attack from another super-virus, and viruses don't communicate and go "Oh hey, I just killed two-thirds of the population man. Better wait a while for them to repopulate!"

Considering millions of years of growth, there should be at least ONE time period where everything is killed, given random chance. Again, you are taking the given situation (everything lives harmoniously) and saying that creatures do that because it's best for their survival. Says what guidebook? There are no GIVENS, yet you continue to believe that life operates harmoniously because it is best for every creature to do so (as with your example of the efficient viruses). Since random chance is the law of the land, it stands to chance that a set of mega-inefficient viruses should at some point in all of history, tromp out of control in a short period of time and kill a major species completely. Like humans for example. Viruses don't "know" that they must not attack a certain group at a certain weak moment, neither does any creature.

My point was that with higher life-forms, there are more factors keeping an animal or creature "In check" with the rest of the environment. The only thing keeping viruses in check is the immune system of the host. Yet we (or other large species) are still alive, though our world is connected by airplanes now more than ever before. There have been several movies and books made about an epidemic running out of control, but the thing that stops all the death would be the immune systems of some lucky individuals. Day 2: A new movie comes out, a new virus takes advantage of the stress-weakened survivors, and kills most of the rest of them. Day 3: Same situation. Enterprising virus targets the final amount of the population who are fatigued, stressed, and definitely not putting out good vibes of health. All the rest of the population is destroyed.

Never gonna happen. Life is a system designed to not wipe itself out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-28-2008, 01:11 PM
 
571 posts, read 501,475 times
Reputation: 58
The fact is there is evidence all around us of evolution. Modern scientist has used it in some of there greatest breakthroughs. skulls from our first ancestors cromagents are less evolve from us. We can see other species evolving chimpanzees, birds, plants all have evolved. The average beak size is bigger in certain parts of the years than others to contemplate for the food shortage. It's not that they purposely evolve its that the ones with wrong size dies out, and the one with the correct size increases. So it doesn't matter that you don't think evolution made man. However you have to recognize that evolution is occurring today. You must admit that evolution has always been there. You don't have to admit that evolution made man. You can simply say man was made then evolution started to happen, same with everything eles. However its a stupit argument to say evolution didn't happen.

Its not hard of a concept, things that better suited to live in a environment lives to reproduce. However the onces that arn't don't live as long which lowers the chance of reproducing.

So sure be religious believe god made man,but don't be that close minded to say that evolution doesn't exist. evidence is in the plants, the trees, the animals, in us.
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 $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:59 PM.

2005-2014, 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 - Top