Evolution

[Hakeem]

Here ya go. A thread to debate evolution.

Here goes:
- Obviously somethings exists. That conclusion led to the big bang theory.
- Big bang makes lots of energy.
- Energy forms matter.
- Matter coalesces with gravity.
- Matter gets very hot and makes stars.
- Yada, yada, yada, all the elements and planets are made.
- One planet has lots of organic elements.
- Said planet has a star that gives it much heat.
- Said planet has organic compounds form naturally.
- Said compounds are very abundant.
- Physical processes make some compounds stick together to form blobs.
- Blobs divide.
- Blobs get DNA (also abundant).
- You've got yourself a cell.
All of that is very probable.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Organic molecules forming according to a scientists design.

And did those molecules connect to form proteins, and then those proteins form a cell, and did that cell start evolving? I suppose it didnt.

They failed to create life. They only made the building blocks. And yet even still...They had to "make" it.

They might have made life in a couple million years. That sort of thing takes the kind of time that research budgets just don't allow for. By the way, they proved the first step is possible, which paves the way for the other steps being proven possible.

Homeostasis is an example of this.

Several things wrong with using homeostasis as a counterexample:

1. Homeostasis would be considered "macroscopic."
2. Homeostasis is a biological function, and life tends to kind of enjoy living; of course it balances itself out. Balance on a biological level has nothing to do with balance on an atomic one.
3. Homeostasis describes such a broad amount of things. A lizard moving from the shade to the sunlight is homeostasis as much as natural diffusion of needed or surplus substances across a cell membrane. One is controlled by the biological entity, and has nothing to do with atomic balance at all; one just happens, but has to do with molecular and not atomic balance.

 

[Elenai]

Even still Teh-Ephy Evolution fails to provide evidence of transitions other than a few snap shots of different animals it claims to have evolved.

The fossil record shows no transitions of missing links.

And take a look at this.
http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm

 

[Teh_Ephy]

The largest missing transition is the one from single- to multi-celled. I do believe that most other transitions are accounted for. Also, that site is religiously biased against evolution in much the same manner you are.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

In these kind of arguments, only non-biased sources can be really quoted for facts.

 

[Elenai]

And were can we find those?

Also show me these transitions. And by transitions I mean transitions that are full transitions, not snap shots of similar looking animals claimed to be transitions.

 

[Hakeem]

http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm

Hmm. Wow. I'm converted. All this time I thought you were not easily fooled.

 

[Elenai]

I'm not easily fooled my friend. Infact I came to these conclusions on my own a long time ago. This link just better shows my position.

 

[Hakeem]

3.5 billion years ago is the oldest fossil, do you know how long it took to get multiple cells?
2 billion years. That's a very long time.
And your equations don't take into account the death of organisms that had less ability to survive.
Also, single celled organisms can share DNA. Yes, that means the can diversify as humans do.

 

[Elenai]

Still does not show that these organisms evolved into a bi'celled organism, or a tri'celled organism, or a ...'celled organism. Those transitions are non-existent. How did a single celled organism JUMP to being a multi celled organism even over 2 billion years.

3.5 billion years = oldest known fossil correct? And it took 2 billion years for multi celled organisms to come about correct?

Then that leaves 1.5 billion years of transitional changes and evidence of those changes un-accounted for, or not even there, let alone found.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

2 billion years is way enough for these kind of impossible odds to happen, since there IS a chance it happened, it had to happen sometime.

And that single cell to multicell jump is the biggest part probably, and once that's done then other changes can occur, changes that aren't all that major, but eventually pile up to change a species into something VERY different.

 

[Elenai]

Even still, there just is not any evidence of these cell transitions. It is totally blank.

since there IS a chance it happened, it had to happen sometime.

A chance that it could happen so it has to happen...hmmmz....

 

[Hakeem]

We have fossils. What do you mean 1.5 billion years unaccounted for?

Also, changes in cells do happen.
The peppered moth changed very quickly to survive in its environment. That's evolution.
People bred wild mustard into cabbage, cauliflower, and broccoli. That's evolution as well.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I think this is just going to turn into a pointless argument like the existence of god. We are in no position to say it's proven or not, and we'll be turning around the same arguments all the time anyway.

Don't bother fooling yourself into thinking you know it's true or not, you can't. You can only choose what you think is right, what you believe is right.

Seriously, stop making threads on such touchy subjects.

 

[Elenai]

Hakeem: that is adaption. Not Evolution. Those creatures did not become entirely new creatures. The moth is still a moth, and the mustard plant is still apart of its *for lack of a better word* species.

And perhaps we should stop this debate. Afterall I dont want this to become a flaming ground.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Actually, Elenai, species is the exact word.

 

[Hakeem]

The biggest problem with science is that it MUST be true. It would never say that pigs don't fly because it MIGHT be wrong. Evidence fully supports the conclusion that pigs cannot fly, but science can NEVER be wrong. I am 99.99999999999999999999999999% sure that pigs don't fly. That's sure enough for me.

And I had to get this subject out of the other one.

Elenai: Adaptation causes evolution. Cabbage and broccoli are different species.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Any lasting adaptation is technically evolution. Also, all evolution is adaptation.

 

[Elenai]

Evolution has yet to prove itself as absolute truth.
And the dog is not the same species as the wolf. But they are pretty much the same. (well not exactly the same but the basic idea...) Even though I agree, cabbage and brocolli are different.

And science can be wrong. (unless that was a sarcastic post)

 

[Hakeem]

Science never says anything is absolute truth. It has to be as correct as it can.
Yes, the wolf and the dog are very similar. What's your point?

 

[Elenai]

Just because they are not the same species does not mean that they are very different. For the cabbage and brocolli they are sure to be similar enough. To be in the same family. But also just because two animals are in the same family does not meant that they have a "common ancestor".

 

[GST_Nemisis]

Science never says anything is absolute truth. It has to be as correct as it can.

we still cant actually prove the earth goes round the sun we have just come to a near certain conclution from study and caclulation.

when it comes to transition fossils infact a large amount are accounted for. while the fossil record itself is not partciularly large compared to the estimates of induvidual species, the species we are aware of and have an abundance of fossils we can track. there are many examples of this and contrary to popular believe there are a few very good examples of human transition fossils. the most infuential one being lucy, which was a fossil found a few years back which is almost perfectly between human and chimpanzee...or whatever it was the the time. the transition fossil argument is become less and less popular as a counter argument because there are so many new fossils being descovered which disprove it. of the species we can track there is often transition fossils to follow their evolution over time.

when it comes to single celluar becoming multicellular its actually much less of a jump then you think. its not like it just randomly happened. infact it is now thought that single cellular organisms would work together and "pair up" even though they were strictly seperate from each other. this allowed sharing of materials including DNA which resulted in larger variation between generations. eventually the DNA adapted to suit this situation because those that could pair up were more likely to survive than those that didnt (natural selection). this allowed the cells to split in such a way that kept them together and slowly a partnership know as "bicellular" was born. it wasnt a sudden jump, it took billions of years, perhaps the longest transition of all time. a good example of this which is still visible today is cocci and streptococci, where the cocci are seperate cells and the streptococci are working together in a chain. essentially there is no such thing as "multicelluar" because each one of our cells can survive and multiply on its own, its just getting the resources to do so; it remains the same in all organisms today and always has done, multicellular just means that the cells help each other with resources, but are still essentially induviduals, sharing the same DNA.

 

[Elenai]

Lucy....Its not even a complete fossil. And only one of its kind. It isnt quite a transitional fossil. Now hundreds of lucys each showing a transition or a "growing up" into a homosapien sort of thing. That would be a worthy set of evidence.

And the streptococci are just working together as a single chain of the same kind of organisms.

They are not like bone cells, skin cells, muscle cells, ect. all working together at the command of brain cells, and nerve cells, forming a body that was at one point one cell (zygote) that split into millions of cells, that became those different cells.

 

[Hakeem]

when it comes to single celluar becoming multicellular [...] sharing the same DNA.

Dang. I was gonna say that when it was the only argument left.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

And the streptococci are just working together as a single chain of the same kind of organisms.

just as the cells in your body do, except all the cells in you body came from the same cell.

They are not like bone cells, skin cells, muscle cells, ect. all working together at the command of brain cells, and nerve cells, forming a body that was at one point one cell (zygote) that split into millions of cells, that became those different cells.

lol, so according to you, cell specialisation defines multicelluar organisms.

 

[Elenai]

According to me, comparing streptococci to a body is incorrect.

Just because they work together does not mean that they are "evolved" multicellular organisms.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

Just because they work together does not mean that they are "evolved" multicellular organisms.

this is how supposedly happened, say you have your streptococci, all from the same parent cell and all sharing the exact same DNA, then one of them mutates as it splits to be more sensitive to light. this is useful for whatever reason and gives an advantage. these cells then replicate in a cluster as they normally do and the cell that is specialised to be sensitive to light is also replicated. this is how a group of cells becomes a group of specialised cells, and this is how you can compare streptococci to a body.

well actually there are 3/4 theories to how it happened, but i think this one is my favorite.

 

[Elenai]

And yet they still do not form a body. But for the sake of arguement. We'll consider that this is how it would have to happen. You still have to consider though that inorder for these to happen, you have to take into account that these different characteristics would probably come about as mutations. And these mutations would have to be beneficial. But the chances of these mutations coming about for the genes required to make these changes, are astronomically improbable. Even for trillions of generations of bacterium.

 

[Hakeem]

We bred mustard into broccoli. Check your calculations.

 

[Elenai]

What does that have to do with my rebuttle to GST?

But even still, breeding does not constitute natural evolution. It is actually more like a variant of Intelligent design.

 

[Hakeem]

Well, there you have it! Proof of intelligent design. Broccoli. But that doesn't mean natural selection doesn't happen as well.
Natural selection is like a stronger wolf surviving better.
Or do weaker wolves flourish?

 

[Elenai]

Natural selection, adaption, and intelligent design. Those I believe exist. But evolution (as in the darwinian kind) I do not believe in.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Evolution has yet to prove itself as absolute truth.

Evolution is just when something accidentally develops any feature, and then the feature becomes widespread throughout the entire species. Evolution somehow or another also came to encompass the emergence of new species from old ones. The first one totally happens for sure, the second one is considered likely by most of the scientific world.

So Elenai, let me ask you something. If evolution was just adaptation and natural selection, and has absolutely nothing to do with the emergence of new species, would you believe in it?

 

[donut3.5]

This is a little off-topic, but evolution has been discussed fairly well.
What about social darwinism? For those who don't know, its that in society, the strong will take their place over the weak. Although it wasn't proposed by Darwin, its stretching his idea.
eg. Hitler used social darwinism to explain that since everyone was weaker than him, he had the right to dominate them.
Immoral, yes, but is it existant as a law of nature, such as a law in human nature? To want to dominate those weaker than you?
--donut3.5--

 

[Teh_Ephy]

It's certainly a frequent occurrence in human nature.

 

[Hakeem]

That's not even a part of my old personality.

 

[Elenai]

Teh-Ephy: If evolution was just natural selection and adaption, and did not involve the emergence of new species. I would probably believe it. As an example. It would be like considering the "evolution" of the dog. A wolf was domesticated, and bred so many times to get the right qualities, IE: became a beagle, baset hound, ect. But it remains still a dog. That I believe in.

Social Darwinism....Yes that is a good topic to discuss.

It does exist. But it is circumvented, by governments that are made by the weak who combine to be strong.

But it still remains in most of the processes we face daily. Even in school work. The stronger grades, get the better colledge.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

But the chances of these mutations coming about for the genes required to make these changes, are astronomically improbable. Even for trillions of generations of bacterium.

state your source tbh. mutations, even very large mutations, are surprisingly common.

 

[Elenai]

http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders
-From this site's info I deduced that since only a percentage of genetic mutations mess with health and development, that beneficial mutations being rare effecting enough development genes to change a species over time, must be very improbable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Beneficial_mutations

My own thoughts and research to lengthy to list-When considering the genome and the balance of beneficial to harmful mutations and what kind they are, and applying that to the amount of genes that effect what kind of animal the organism is and how much damage/fixes the genome of a creature's decendents would have to undergo inorder to become a new organism.

My conclusion=It's just not likeley to happen in nature through random processes. Over any span of time. The only way organism A can become organism B is for a being like humans to guide it like we did with dogs, or to physically engineer their genome. And even that is very hard to do.

Show me your research where the beneficial mutations required to change A's genome to a different organism B's genome are common and ect.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Stop arguing.

I have found proof!

 

[Elenai]

I feel so very converted. And here is some more proof

here

Here are a few parts of a documentary against evolution. This is also a documentary based on the works of an Islamic person.
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
I do not quite agree with the some parts like the dating, but the basic concept shows evidence against evolution in the fossil record.

 

[Wolverabid]

[off-topic]

This thread has been reported.

The discussion (so far) seems intelligent lively and mature. Lets keep it that way guys, and not get any hurt feeling this time, shall we?

[/off-topic]
Another important source:

ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.

 

[Elenai]

Reported? Why? Have we hurt someone? I see that you think we've been restrained about ourselves. But just out of precautionary action.

Anyways an interesting scource. Lord Bacon had a quote of truth I believe.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

Show me your research where the beneficial mutations required to change A's genome to a different organism B's genome are common and ect.

that would be impossible, when i say "surprisingly common" i dont mean they happen every day and you are never going to see one organism become something else unless you live for several million years. what i mean is that although the percentage of benificial mutations are small, over the course of this planets history that small percentage makes a big difference. and if you could see lifes history shrunk to a day you would see benificial mutations happening all constantly.

even that wikipedia page suggest that it is common considering the span of the plauge and the small percentage change of mutation. if it can happen to humans in that short of time much much more can happen over millions of years.

 

[Elenai]

But not enough to change an organism I'm afraid. Even millions of years of mutation does not usurp a genome.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I feel so very converted. And here is some more proof

I was kidding, of course. I was just trying to lighten up whatever mood there is.

And there is no proof of evolution or any proof countering it, there is only evidence. Evidence points to evolution being right and other evidence poins to evolution being wrong, but nothing proves it or disproves it.

It's something no one can be sure of, and until we find evidence that VERY strongly disproves it or proves it, we can only speculate.

So you just can't say "I'm right and you're wrong", no matter your view is.

 

[Elenai]

I knew you were lightening the mood. Did you not see this link?
here\

And I suppose that that last post of yours will make a good compromise in this war of ideals.

Until proof or disproof surfaces upon this world....This debate I suppose will remain as such a stalemate.

 

[Hakeem]

Yeah, sure, we bred wolves and they kept being dogs over and over again, but we also bred mustard into broccoli. Humans can speed up evolution, but it's just common sense that stronger and faster wolves survive better. Given millions of years of stronger, faster, wolves surviving and having more children, you really think it's impossible to breed a wolf so different that it's unable to breed with its ancestors?

 

[SimonKurciski]

This is my take on evolution.

Elenai keeps saying that there is not enough evidence in the fossil record to prove that evolution exists. Ok. I will not debate that, one way or the other.

But is there any evidence at all in favor of intelligent design? The only arguments for intelligent design relate to evolution not being true. There is zero evidence that directly supports intelligent design.

So am I missing something here?

Also, sorry if I'm a bit off-topic with the current conversation. I have not read the whole thread.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

But is there any evidence at all in favor of intelligent design? The only arguments for intelligent design relate to evolution not being true. There is zero evidence that directly supports intelligent design.

Ever hear of something called the Bible?