Evolution or Creation?

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Something sort of funny about claiming superior knowledge of "fysics." The irony abounds.

Oh, you are a gentle one, ff.
Truly.

 

[Andro Man]

But, of course, they did. Not all dinosaurs existed simultaneously. In fact, part of the clearest evidence for evolution is that we can see how dinosaurs started from very small creatures, eventually turned into mega-fauna, branched into many directions, slowly changed to fit new ecological niches, and eventually moved back towards small as they developed into their evolutionary successors, birds.

That would be the "sudden" change that you started out critiquing. If evolution worked by instantaneous change then you would have monkeys giving birth to the occasional human, but that is precisely how it DOESN'T work..

It takes remarkably little DNA drift to separate species. Humans differ from chimpanzees and bonoboes by less than 4% of our total DNA, but that is an insuperable barrier. There are even more closely related species, some with less than 1% difference, that are already reproductively separated.

What you don't seem to be grasping is that I'm not saying evolution means sudden change, obviously if you believe in evolution then there's no such thing.

Let's put it a bit clearer then. A chimpansee giving birth to
some humanoid(or something that according to evolution would be the missing link between chimpansee and human). And if you say that isn't possible because it goes even more gradual than that. Where's the point where there not the same species anymore?
Coz regardless of how slowly it goes, that's what eventually happens. And based on the archeological findings this happens approximately in a certain period allround the world



Something sort of funny about claiming superior knowledge of "fysics." The irony abounds.[/quote]

If you are, that is kind of funny

 

[playainda336]

perhaps you believe evolution cannots be proven to the 100% mark, maybe, maybe not... the point is that evolution has a lot more proof behind it than creationism, and is much more logical.

Sometimes what is most logical, isn't always the "right" answer.

Why does there have to be a why? What is wrong with what is being what is?

Because there is a reason for everything. Science even proves that. It's more preposterous not to ask why.

If there were no question as to "why" then the study of science would not exist.

Yes, you do. The only answer to "why" in that respect would have to be a circular logic.

It's only circular logic if you take the argument back to "gravity" and dismiss the possibility of other answers.

In my opinion, evolution is just as much a myth as creationism. Neither can be totally proven. Neither can be totally disproven. Gravity is not an answer to "why" everything started. And if it is, then why was the gravity there? What caused the gravity? Who, What, Where, When, Why was the the force of gravity made to instigate a process that created all that we know...and how was it that it all just happened to fall into place?

Science causes more questions in my mind than it answers. "Gravity" just wont suffice.

If the "answer" is, "because it did" then just as easily anyone can say "God exists because he does." From the philosophical point of view, you have to understand how dogmatic that sounds.

 

[LeeEJ]

Wow. No wonder I hate these debates. It's like talking to a fucking WALL.

Thanks, fortiesfun, for keeping your head on straight and clearing it up. I can't imagine how anyone could disagree with how you've put it.

 

[Andro Man]

Wow. No wonder I hate these debates. It's like talking to a fucking WALL.

Thanks, fortiesfun, for keeping your head on straight and clearing it up. I can't imagine how anyone could disagree with how you've put it.

I'm getting the same impression. If you see the world mechanically then I suppose evolution is the way to go. Even so it's still a theory...similar dna means squat, convince with the actual evidence and it won't be a theory but a fact.

The way I see evolution is as part of the movement that was a reaction of that period to the period before the Renaissance, when the world was overly spiritual. Thus the reaction....scientific method, etc....

I'm on neither side, I opt for the third way I think we need both

 

[fortiesfun]

similar dna means squat,

In what sense can similar DNA be said to mean "squat?"

If species were created separately, then they should not have the same kinds of genetic relationships that we see in artifically bred species where we know that one is bred out of the other. Instead, we see clear genetic patterns which tell us the relationship of one species to another. (In fact, we can see at much more specific levels, including the relationships of human bloodlines to each other.)

This seems to me more of a case of your not understanding DNA evidence, so it means squat TO YOU, than it having no meaning in general.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

Let's put it a bit clearer then. A chimpansee giving birth to
some humanoid(or something that according to evolution would be the missing link between chimpansee and human). And if you say that isn't possible because it goes even more gradual than that. Where's the point where there not the same species anymore?
Coz regardless of how slowly it goes, that's what eventually happens. And based on the archeological findings this happens approximately in a certain period allround the world

You're thinking about it the wrong way, it isn't that one day a monkey gives birth to a human... think about it in a different way.

Envision a group of primates.

Imagine they live in a place where it can be quite hard to get food, so energy efficiency is important. Walking on two legs is more efficient than walking on all fours, so over time the members of the group which spend more time ont heir back legs are the more sucessfull - they live longer and have mroe kids who survive longer and also walk on two legs.

Also imagine that due to the lack of a constant food supply, they have to deversify in what they eat, so the ones who can work out how to eat different foods, like bugs or small animals that the others haven't worked out how to eat, these are the ones who are mroe successfull and go on to have more kids.

You then get a situation where it is an advantage in breeding to have a propensity to walk on your rear legs and be able to diversify in your food sources.

Over a long peroid of time, they that can diversify and walk o their back legs for longer periods are the ones that are more successfull, breeding children like them, who, over a long period of time they evolve to walk upright, they evolve different types of teeth for their diverse diet and their hands become better at picking things up for smacking prey with, and their brains become mroe able to solve problems and think in new ways because that is advantageous.

In this scenario, you get a very gradual change over generations which produces human beings. There was no time when a baby was born that was so different from it's parents that it was an entirely new species, but over time that group evolved so much that they couldn't mate with other groups, which made that group a new species.

The cut off point is when inter-mating is no longer possible, but this doesn't just suddenly happen one day, it happens over a massive amount of time - evolution isn't an individual thing, it's a group thing, the group adapts and moves forward - an individual born that could not mate with the rest of the group would have no offspring, which would be an evolutionary dead end, but over time the group evolves so much that even though they can still mate with each other they can no longer mate with the other groups around them; that is when you have a new species.

Think in terms of groups of creatures changeing en masse over time, not individuals.

 

[Andro Man]

In what sense can similar DNA be said to mean "squat?"

If species were created separately, then they should not have the same kinds of genetic relationships that we see in artifically bred species where we know that one is bred out of the other. Instead, we see clear genetic patterns which tell us the relationship of one species to another. (In fact, we can see at much more specific levels, including the relationships of human bloodlines to each other.)

This seems to me more of a case of your not understanding DNA evidence, so it means squat TO YOU, than it having no meaning in general.

I'm no expert like you maybe claim to be. What I do know is that DNA is very complex and that a small difference in DNA can have quite a large impact, because of the different combinations of the interrelationships etc.

Still back to the same point coz the DNA (how similar, more similar it is) shows what species it is, not how one species became another

 

[Andro Man]

In this scenario, you get a very gradual change over generations which produces human beings. There was no time when a baby was born that was so different from it's parents that it was an entirely new species, but over time that group evolved so much that they couldn't mate with other groups, which made that group a new species.
.

I understand the concept of evolution, but 2 points.

1)It happens to groups. This implies that the 'X-men' and women get together and fuck. Whose to say that would happen. Some people are born with 3 legs...Do they even get a chance to procreate? And even if there was another freak they could get it on with, would that automatically be passed on to the offspring???

2) And even in the best case that the environment is so conducive to the freakoids that they survive. There is stil a point when they're no longer human, gradually evolved and survival of the fittest

Characteristics change within a certain species, keep changing as a certain species>no longer certain species>????

A man with 2 noses, a man with 2 noses and 3 legs, a man with 2 noses 3 legs and 2 dicks>man no more???Different characteristics but still a man, right?

 

[fortiesfun]

I'm no expert like you maybe claim to be. What I do know is that DNA is very complex and that a small difference in DNA can have quite a large impact, because of the different combinations of the interrelationships etc. Still back to the same point coz the DNA (how similar, more similar it is) shows what species it is, not how one species became another

I understand the concept of evolution, but 2 points.
1)It happens to groups. This implies that the 'X-men' and women get together and fuck. Whose to say that would happen. Some people are born with 3 legs...Do they even get a chance to procreate? And even if there was another freak they could get it on with, would that automatically be passed on to the offspring???
2) And even in the best case that the environment is so conducive to the freakoids that they survive. There is stil a point when they're no longer human, gradually evolved and survival of the fittest. Characteristics change within a certain species, keep changing as a certain species>no longer certain species>????

A man with 2 noses, a man with 2 noses and 3 legs, a man with 2 noses 3 legs and 2 dicks>man no more???Different characteristics but still a man, right?

When I read your first post, I was inclined to argue, but now that I've read that second one I see the error of my ways and am now convinced. It was the three legged fucking, by the way, that finally helped me understand non-evolution in a whole new way.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

A man with 2 noses, a man with 2 noses and 3 legs, a man with 2 noses 3 legs and 2 dicks>man no more???Different characteristics but still a man, right?

That kind of stuff happens due to differeing levels of Sonic Hedgehog (I wish I was joking) while the baby is a foetus, it's a birth defect and not part of evolution.

1)It happens to groups. This implies that the 'X-men' and women get together and fuck. Whose to say that would happen. Some people are born with 3 legs...Do they even get a chance to procreate? And even if there was another freak they could get it on with, would that automatically be passed on to the offspring???

If the baby can't mate with the surrounding specimins of it's group, then it's doomed to die out.

As I said, if a baby is born that cannot mate with it's group, it's genetic line will end very promptly.

The inability to breed comes with time apart - i.e. Humans have evolved over a time to the point when we cannot mate with other primates and produce offspring because we are our own species now, but the change within our group was small every generation so the babies were never so different from the parents that they couldn't mate with their peers (if they were they would not create offspring and that genetic line would die off).

It's all about mating and genetic lines, rather than babies being born that are spectacularly different. Such infants would noit be very likely to procreate so would be at an evolutionary disatvantage.

I'm not too great at explaining this stuff because i'm not an evolutionary biologist, I really reccomend getting a book by Richard Dawkins, like The Blind Watchmaker or The God Delusion. The latter is very anti-God but it has some very good arguements on exactly this subject: evolution vs creationism.

 

[basque9]

When I read your first post, I was inclined to argue, but now that I've read that second one I see the error of my ways and am now convinced. It was the three legged fucking, by the way, that finally helped me understand non-evolution in a whole new way.

I have been tracking your wonderfully reasoned and logical discourse all along Doc and have gleaned a new and heightened awareness of a number of aspects of genetic fabric and evolutionary principles. Please tell me your above comment is tongue in cheek ....or else all of my newly acquired knowledge is shot to Hell!:wink::smile:

 

[fortiesfun]

I have been tracking your wonderfully reasoned and logical discourse all along Doc and have gleaned a new and heightened awareness of a number of aspects of genetic fabric and evolutionary principles. Please tell me your above comment is tongue in cheek ....or else all of my newly acquired knowledge is shot to Hell!:wink::smile:

My tongue is always in cheek, just not always mine.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Which issue of X-Men was it that introduced 3-legged man?

and why wasn't I on the cover?

 

[davec94]

people really need to differentiate between a scientific theory and the general term 'theory'. Using the two interchangeably is a creationist trick to try and compare evolution to religious postulation so they can get the bible brought into science class.

 

[Nrets]

Well just to turn this thread to the basic subject of this forum, I wonder how evolution affected the penis size of homo sapiens. I mean, are better hung men better at mating, more desirable for females, or naturally selected for some other reason? Or the opposite? What can we infer from the animal kingdom about this?
Has the average male genitalia increased in size over the eons or decreased? And the big controversial question -- why did male genitalia in certain areas of the world and among certain peoples evolve toward the larger or smaller size? (if it did). Was it totally random, or did a larger penis give an evolutionary advantage in one place, but not in another?
I wonder if anyone has ever studied this, or if it's even possible to study it (i.e. is there enough evidence from ages past).

The Homo Sapiens penis is bigger than any other primate species in proportion to its body. It is widely thought that human females drove the evolution of larger cock size. Chimps have about an average of 4 inches, Gorillas are bigger in body size and smaller than Chimps in penis size. Chimps are considered very close relatives to humans. It shows that the closer to human you get, the more that sexual selection plays a role in penis size

 

[Act2_Begins_Now]

theory, a poor one at that

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

The Homo Sapiens penis is bigger than any other primate species in proportion to its body.

True enough. But the news gets better.
It's also bigger in absolute terms, isn't it?

 

[kalipygian]

the only proof i see is average human height increasing through the centuries and the ability of certin animals adapting to thier enviornment.

Increase in size in a few generations is not only from natural selection, it is likely more directly attributable to externals, such as improvments in infant care, nutrition, sanitation, medicine etc.

 

[kalipygian]

You're thinking about it the wrong way, it isn't that one day a monkey gives birth to a human... think about it in a different way.

Envision a group of primates.

Imagine they live in a place where it can be quite hard to get food, so energy efficiency is important. Walking on two legs is more efficient than walking on all fours, so over time the members of the group which spend more time ont heir back legs are the more sucessfull - they live longer and have mroe kids who survive longer and also walk on two legs.

I understand that it isn't just what you are saying, but bipedal motion is less energy efficient than quadrapedal. Otherwise in agreement with your post.