Refer to other "intelligent design versus darwinism" post.
Basically I think that it's imp-ossible for some being that came from pretty much nowhere to just poof two perfectly generated humans onto earth, and them somehow have the life span to spawn enough children to incestuously populate the planet, and then also be able to survive practically nakid and survive past the animals that where much more vicious than they are now (due to getting used to humans) and somehow able to populate other continents when they had no boats or ships, and somehow learn all of the things we have learned. The bible also says the earth is 4000 years old, but we've proven that to be completely wrong. Saying "humans got here by god's magic" is the same as just not answering the wuestions at all, because out of one question is makes many many more. It just isn't scientific at all. It is the lack of science that created this theory in the first place. If perhaps god made two single celled organisms and they multiplied enough to spawn the planet, then maybe. but most of the bible and most of all other religions are only there to explain things that couldn't have been explained otherwise with the technology available at the time. Now it can be proven wrong, and has been proven wrong, and the only reason people stick to this belief is because they either want the comfort of thinking that there is some failsafe behind life and that science (which most people don't understand well) isn't everything, which in esssence it is, or they are afraid they'll get smote or condemmned or something silly like that for not believing because their parents or surroundings have forced them to have that phobia. Just because that missing link hasn't yet been found, doesn't mean that it just isn't there, it just means we haven't found it yet. For all we know that missing link could have had the intelligence necessary to pay tribute to dead like some mammals do. Elephants scatter the bones of their dead and didn't used to before the increase in poaching, so why can't other mammals other than homosapiens do the same? perhaps those random bones we often find that can't be placed are just that? I don't think that the missing link is still elived, the same way people who say "we didn't evolve from monkies" don't understand that these early mammals where not "monkies" (because if there where there'd be no monkies today) but instead creatures that somewhat resembled them, and that's why there AREN'T and other ones like that now, just fossils. Just because we haven't yet found it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We haven't yet found the arc or jesus's skeleton or any record that this "adam and eve" ever existed, and that doesn't stop people from believing it. Religion seems to have no need tor things like proof, or logic, or reasoning.
| |
|
Welcome to AstaHost - Dear Guest 
, Please Register here to get Your own website. - Ask a Question / Express Opinion / Reply
w/o Sign-Up!
| |
Replying to Evolution
Topic Summary
Vicious_AD
Posted 25 March 2006 - 06:55 AM
illini319
Posted 23 March 2006 - 12:04 AM
Science prides itself on being objective. We come up with a hypothesis, we test the hypothesis, we make emotion-less conclusions from our experiment. All the while, taking into account that our conclusions (which is independent of the data) is our perception of reality; that there can be other ways to interpret the same data that would still be consistent with all the constraints of the experiment. That is, scientists know that with every experiment, one must remain open minded to ensure an unbiased position towards interpreting the data. So, fundamentally, a scientist is first and foremost an open minded tester of phenomena. And yet when it comes to the oldest questions in humanity, scientists close their eyes, stick fingers in their ears, and essentially close their mind to the possibility that something greater than what they currently understand could be the answer to their questions regarding life, the cosmos, etc.
Scientifically, with regards to a god, the answer is simple: we don't know. An answer such is this is derived from the fact that we simply do not have positive data regarding this 'experiment.' There is NO data whatsoever that supports or refutes the idea that a god exists. So why is it that most scientists are atheists? Are they not breaking one of the most fundamental tenets of their practice: no conclusion when there is no data?
I should note now that I am a scientist. And like everyone (regardless of camp) I have personally debated the idea of a god. But I think, as a scientist, I owe it to myself to remain objectified and acknowledge that there is simply no good data regarding a god. That, as a scientist, I should not fall to the same DOGMATIC trap of the very people most scientists find ignorant. Hence when it comes to things like creation/evolution... I find myself scratching my head and wonder why soooo many people immediately divide themselves as if the two possibilities are so absolutely mutually exclusive. Why can't both be approximations of the same truth?
Scientifically, with regards to a god, the answer is simple: we don't know. An answer such is this is derived from the fact that we simply do not have positive data regarding this 'experiment.' There is NO data whatsoever that supports or refutes the idea that a god exists. So why is it that most scientists are atheists? Are they not breaking one of the most fundamental tenets of their practice: no conclusion when there is no data?
I should note now that I am a scientist. And like everyone (regardless of camp) I have personally debated the idea of a god. But I think, as a scientist, I owe it to myself to remain objectified and acknowledge that there is simply no good data regarding a god. That, as a scientist, I should not fall to the same DOGMATIC trap of the very people most scientists find ignorant. Hence when it comes to things like creation/evolution... I find myself scratching my head and wonder why soooo many people immediately divide themselves as if the two possibilities are so absolutely mutually exclusive. Why can't both be approximations of the same truth?
delfin1
Posted 09 January 2006 - 01:04 AM
I have to believe in evolution, i mean look at all the evidence there is on fossils. Even now we can appreciate evolution - people are being born with darker skin, smarter, etc.
We can see evolution on small organisms with a short half life.
I don't know about evolving from apes, but surely we evolved from something. We continue to evolve.
For the one who says there is no debate between intelligent design and evolution... off course there is no debate, the newly adopted idea of intelligent design takes care of it.
There is a great amount of debate to be done about the old testament vs evolution, because each propose completly different views on the creation of men.
The bible teaches men were created to the image of god, maybe some facts about the creation of men got los in translation, or maybe these were all myths.
I was raised catholic and it's really hard because there is really no way i can ever come to a conclusion, just have to wait and see what happens after death.
We can see evolution on small organisms with a short half life.
I don't know about evolving from apes, but surely we evolved from something. We continue to evolve.
For the one who says there is no debate between intelligent design and evolution... off course there is no debate, the newly adopted idea of intelligent design takes care of it.
There is a great amount of debate to be done about the old testament vs evolution, because each propose completly different views on the creation of men.
The bible teaches men were created to the image of god, maybe some facts about the creation of men got los in translation, or maybe these were all myths.
I was raised catholic and it's really hard because there is really no way i can ever come to a conclusion, just have to wait and see what happens after death.
mitchellmckain
Posted 06 January 2006 - 07:39 PM
Let me first say that I am both a Christian and a scientist (masters in physics), so I am somewhat sympathetic to both sides. In principle, I am in favor of having a religion class in public schools. However I can accept the reality that this is impossible. If the pressure in the community is enough to cause the serious consideration of substituting evolution science with creationist pseudo-science (rhetoric superficially clothed in the terminology of science), which is what is happening in areas of the United States, imagine what the effect of this pressure would be on a religion class. Such a religion class will become nothing more than brainwashing tool in the hands of the dominant religion in the area. Now while I sympathize with the complaints of these religious groups that the public schools are already a brainwashing tool in the hands of the secular government, I must say that, as long as religious groups express hostility to every religious group and idea in disagreement with their own doctrines, then this is a reality they must live with. After all there are private schools. For many parents like me, we would prefer not to isolate our children, as if we were keeping them in a brainwashing camp, and see to their religious education ourselves without the interference of fanatics.
Science tries to formulate a test by which you can decide whether a theory is correct or incorrect. Simply hunting for evidence to support your theory is what lawyers and salesmen do, not scientists, and it is called rhetoric. The difference is a particular type of honesty which is rather peculiar to science. However this methodology of science is more suitable to some topics than others. It has proven most suitably applied to a thesis which can be given a mathematical formulation relating measurable quantities. Otherwise it is difficult to formulate an objective test by which the truth of the thesis can be determined. The "creationist" or "intellegent design" thesis does not fit this criterion very well at all. Therefore whether it is true or not, it is most definitely not a good scientific theory. Evolution as a process can be documented, making it a good (not great) scientific theory. However as a historical claim about the origin of the species, evolution like any other historical claim is a far more difficult thesis to test.
As both a Christian and a scientist I cherish hopes for bridging the gap between the two points of view. My line of attack has been against the ideas of mechanistic determinism and accidental variation in evolution and against the idea of design in creationism. I think both of these extremes display a blindness to the realities of what it means to be a living organism. I am saying that the what divides the two viewpoints is the same failure to understand the nature of living things. Living things are not "designed", they grow. They are not determined, they make creative choices. Variation is not accidental, it is intentional. Evolution reflects the creative learning process of living things. Creation reflects the fact that living things are sensitive to their environment and can be cultivated.
The only "creationism" that I support and believe in is simply that God played an active role in the orgin of the universe and everything in it, and not as a scientific theory or even primarily as an explanation for things. God is the ultimate black box in which to hide a multitude of mysteries and unanswered questions. Our belief in this is a matter of faith not science.
I am very much opposed to the idea of design in creation. It is the difference between how a watchmaker makes a watch and how a gardener makes a flower. The watchmaker makes a dead thing by a process of design and execution. A gardener makes his flower by interactive relationship with a living thing which we call cultivation. He cares for it, provides for its needs, and encourages it to produce what he wants. There is no design. The same goes for all creators of livings including teachers and parents. When creating a living thing the created is a participant in the process of creation. If isn't a participant in its own creation then it isn't alive.
The essence of the learning process is trial and error. Try many things and find the variations which produce good results. It is a two part process: creativity and evaluation. Evolution in essence is the same process with slightly different terms: variation and selection. The question is whether you think of it as something dead (automatic, accidental, unintentional), something which happens to living things, or as an activity in which living things participate by choice, purposely and intentionally. Also, living things are not isolated components. They interact in living collectives which are also alive. The organelles are alive. The cells are alive. The multicelluar organisms are alive. The communities are alive. The species are alive. The ecosystems are alive. Evolution simply describes the process whereby the species is creative in genetic variation, making choices in response to evironmental change and learning new and different ways to live.
But the problem is that the two sides of the opposition approach the topic as if they were engaging in holy war against the forces of evil and ignorance. Of course, "evil" is the Christian word. The other side uses the word "ignorance". They do not want to understand the opposing point of view. They only want to prove that the other side's point of view is completely invalid, stupid, and utterly without merit. I think that both science and Christianity will be the casualties in this and all that will be left is rhetoric. The activities themselves are not directly in jeapardy. It is the is in minds of people where they are casualties. It is the true meaning and understanding of science and Christianity which are lost when they are replaced by rhetoric. And yet the activities themselves are not immune. For when people do not understand or respect an activity, then why would they participate with time and money.
Science tries to formulate a test by which you can decide whether a theory is correct or incorrect. Simply hunting for evidence to support your theory is what lawyers and salesmen do, not scientists, and it is called rhetoric. The difference is a particular type of honesty which is rather peculiar to science. However this methodology of science is more suitable to some topics than others. It has proven most suitably applied to a thesis which can be given a mathematical formulation relating measurable quantities. Otherwise it is difficult to formulate an objective test by which the truth of the thesis can be determined. The "creationist" or "intellegent design" thesis does not fit this criterion very well at all. Therefore whether it is true or not, it is most definitely not a good scientific theory. Evolution as a process can be documented, making it a good (not great) scientific theory. However as a historical claim about the origin of the species, evolution like any other historical claim is a far more difficult thesis to test.
As both a Christian and a scientist I cherish hopes for bridging the gap between the two points of view. My line of attack has been against the ideas of mechanistic determinism and accidental variation in evolution and against the idea of design in creationism. I think both of these extremes display a blindness to the realities of what it means to be a living organism. I am saying that the what divides the two viewpoints is the same failure to understand the nature of living things. Living things are not "designed", they grow. They are not determined, they make creative choices. Variation is not accidental, it is intentional. Evolution reflects the creative learning process of living things. Creation reflects the fact that living things are sensitive to their environment and can be cultivated.
The only "creationism" that I support and believe in is simply that God played an active role in the orgin of the universe and everything in it, and not as a scientific theory or even primarily as an explanation for things. God is the ultimate black box in which to hide a multitude of mysteries and unanswered questions. Our belief in this is a matter of faith not science.
I am very much opposed to the idea of design in creation. It is the difference between how a watchmaker makes a watch and how a gardener makes a flower. The watchmaker makes a dead thing by a process of design and execution. A gardener makes his flower by interactive relationship with a living thing which we call cultivation. He cares for it, provides for its needs, and encourages it to produce what he wants. There is no design. The same goes for all creators of livings including teachers and parents. When creating a living thing the created is a participant in the process of creation. If isn't a participant in its own creation then it isn't alive.
The essence of the learning process is trial and error. Try many things and find the variations which produce good results. It is a two part process: creativity and evaluation. Evolution in essence is the same process with slightly different terms: variation and selection. The question is whether you think of it as something dead (automatic, accidental, unintentional), something which happens to living things, or as an activity in which living things participate by choice, purposely and intentionally. Also, living things are not isolated components. They interact in living collectives which are also alive. The organelles are alive. The cells are alive. The multicelluar organisms are alive. The communities are alive. The species are alive. The ecosystems are alive. Evolution simply describes the process whereby the species is creative in genetic variation, making choices in response to evironmental change and learning new and different ways to live.
But the problem is that the two sides of the opposition approach the topic as if they were engaging in holy war against the forces of evil and ignorance. Of course, "evil" is the Christian word. The other side uses the word "ignorance". They do not want to understand the opposing point of view. They only want to prove that the other side's point of view is completely invalid, stupid, and utterly without merit. I think that both science and Christianity will be the casualties in this and all that will be left is rhetoric. The activities themselves are not directly in jeapardy. It is the is in minds of people where they are casualties. It is the true meaning and understanding of science and Christianity which are lost when they are replaced by rhetoric. And yet the activities themselves are not immune. For when people do not understand or respect an activity, then why would they participate with time and money.
JUDGE_RELIC
Posted 02 January 2006 - 04:04 PM
Everything has to evovle or die, it is the design of nature. Adaption to ever changing enviroments, over comming new obsticals introduced into the enviroment is also a neccessity for an increased opportunity for survival of a species. The devation from evolution is called Extinction.
and you can quote me on that!
and you can quote me on that!
Admiral Lyoko Samus
Posted 06 February 2005 - 09:02 PM
Ok, I'm going to say this and I'm only going to say it once along with support that the entire evolutionary theory is invalid and is constantly backfiring upon supporters of Darwinism. Not to provide any disrespect, considering I should know the trouble with such issues (and I know there will be that one person who decides to hate me for disproving this), but there are obviously some major conflicts here and I'd hate to know I could have stopped it from devleoping much more. However, believe what you want and feel is right; not what people tell you is right.
Note: Due to the limit of text that can be placed in one post, links to the articles have been provided. All are Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) files. For those of you that were unable to comprehend the aforementioned paragraph, this is a Creationist supporting statement and was created by Christians. It is encouraged that Atheists and people of other faiths ignore this fact, as there are only biblical references/excerpts to encourage people of the Christian faith. Most of the information provided is purely scientific and based on previous discoveries and public statements to the scientific community. All proceeding articles are of complete relavance to the subject and it is encouraged that each be read to understand the full message that each is providing, as well as answer any contradictory questions you might have. If you wish to read more articles in relation to the invalidity of the Evolutionary theory/Darwinism or other "man-made" theories, you are encouraged to visit http://www.apologeticspress.org and visit the "Article Reprints" section. Some of the Articles listed here are in regards to the actual approximate age of the Earth, but are also relavant to the Evolutionary Theory.
Dinosaurs, Science, and the Bible - http://www.apologeti...nts/dinossb.pdf
Theistic Evolution-Curse of the Church - http://www.apologeti...ints/church.pdf
The Truth About "Lucy" - http://www.apologeti...s/truthlucy.pdf
The Grand Canyon and The Age of the Earth - http://www.apologeti...ts/grndcnyn.pdf
Evolution, Civilization, and Man's Intelligence - http://www.apologeti...s/intelignc.pdf
Neanderthal Man-Another Look - http://www.apologeti...s/nanderman.pdf
Polystrate Fossils and Evolution - http://www.apologeti...ts/polyfosl.pdf
Our Earth-Young or Old? - http://www.apologeti...nts/yng-old.pdf
No Missing Links Here... - http://www.apologeti...ts/nomissng.pdf
Human and Chimpanzee DNA-Proof of Evolution? - http://www.apologeti...ts/chimpdna.pdf
Neanderthal DNA Studies - http://www.apologeti...ts/nean-dna.pdf
What About Cave Men? - http://www.apologeti...nts/cavemen.pdf
The Doctrine of Apparent Age - http://www.apologeti...ts/apparent.pdf
Creation and The Gap Theory - http://www.apologeti...nts/creagap.pdf
The Demise of "Mitochondrial Eve" - http://www.apologeti...s/demiseeve.pdf
The Bible and the Age of the Earth - http://www.apologeti...ts/ageearth.pdf
The Bible, Science, and the Age of the Earth - http://www.apologeti...rints/bsage.pdf
Blind Cave Fish-Proof of Evolution? - http://www.apologeti...ts/cavefish.pdf
Archaeopteryx and the "Dinosaurs-to-Birds" Theory - http://www.apologeti...ts/archaeop.pdf
Australia's Unique Animals - http://www.apologeti...ints/marsup.pdf
The Antiquity of Human History - http://www.apologeti...ts/antihist.pdf
The Geologic Timetable - http://www.apologeti...s/timetable.pdf
Does Biblical Creation Account Agree with Geological Time Periods? - http://www.apologeti...timeperiods.pdf
Too Much Activity on Day Six? - http://www.apologeti...ints/daysix.pdf
Are Six Days Six Days? - http://www.apologeti...ts/rsixdays.pdf
Theistic Evolution or Atheism? - http://www.apologeti...nts/atheism.pdf
Was the "Behemoth" of Job 40:15 a Dinosaur? - http://www.apologeti...ts/wasbehem.pdf
Jurassic Park-The New Orthodoxy? - http://www.apologeti...ts/jurassic.pdf
The Formation of Coal - Two Views Considered - http://www.apologeti...prints/coal.pdf
Identifying Leviathan in Job 41 - http://www.apologeti...s/leviathan.pdf
Note: Due to the limit of text that can be placed in one post, links to the articles have been provided. All are Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) files. For those of you that were unable to comprehend the aforementioned paragraph, this is a Creationist supporting statement and was created by Christians. It is encouraged that Atheists and people of other faiths ignore this fact, as there are only biblical references/excerpts to encourage people of the Christian faith. Most of the information provided is purely scientific and based on previous discoveries and public statements to the scientific community. All proceeding articles are of complete relavance to the subject and it is encouraged that each be read to understand the full message that each is providing, as well as answer any contradictory questions you might have. If you wish to read more articles in relation to the invalidity of the Evolutionary theory/Darwinism or other "man-made" theories, you are encouraged to visit http://www.apologeticspress.org and visit the "Article Reprints" section. Some of the Articles listed here are in regards to the actual approximate age of the Earth, but are also relavant to the Evolutionary Theory.
Dinosaurs, Science, and the Bible - http://www.apologeti...nts/dinossb.pdf
Theistic Evolution-Curse of the Church - http://www.apologeti...ints/church.pdf
The Truth About "Lucy" - http://www.apologeti...s/truthlucy.pdf
The Grand Canyon and The Age of the Earth - http://www.apologeti...ts/grndcnyn.pdf
Evolution, Civilization, and Man's Intelligence - http://www.apologeti...s/intelignc.pdf
Neanderthal Man-Another Look - http://www.apologeti...s/nanderman.pdf
Polystrate Fossils and Evolution - http://www.apologeti...ts/polyfosl.pdf
Our Earth-Young or Old? - http://www.apologeti...nts/yng-old.pdf
No Missing Links Here... - http://www.apologeti...ts/nomissng.pdf
Human and Chimpanzee DNA-Proof of Evolution? - http://www.apologeti...ts/chimpdna.pdf
Neanderthal DNA Studies - http://www.apologeti...ts/nean-dna.pdf
What About Cave Men? - http://www.apologeti...nts/cavemen.pdf
The Doctrine of Apparent Age - http://www.apologeti...ts/apparent.pdf
Creation and The Gap Theory - http://www.apologeti...nts/creagap.pdf
The Demise of "Mitochondrial Eve" - http://www.apologeti...s/demiseeve.pdf
The Bible and the Age of the Earth - http://www.apologeti...ts/ageearth.pdf
The Bible, Science, and the Age of the Earth - http://www.apologeti...rints/bsage.pdf
Blind Cave Fish-Proof of Evolution? - http://www.apologeti...ts/cavefish.pdf
Archaeopteryx and the "Dinosaurs-to-Birds" Theory - http://www.apologeti...ts/archaeop.pdf
Australia's Unique Animals - http://www.apologeti...ints/marsup.pdf
The Antiquity of Human History - http://www.apologeti...ts/antihist.pdf
The Geologic Timetable - http://www.apologeti...s/timetable.pdf
Does Biblical Creation Account Agree with Geological Time Periods? - http://www.apologeti...timeperiods.pdf
Too Much Activity on Day Six? - http://www.apologeti...ints/daysix.pdf
Are Six Days Six Days? - http://www.apologeti...ts/rsixdays.pdf
Theistic Evolution or Atheism? - http://www.apologeti...nts/atheism.pdf
Was the "Behemoth" of Job 40:15 a Dinosaur? - http://www.apologeti...ts/wasbehem.pdf
Jurassic Park-The New Orthodoxy? - http://www.apologeti...ts/jurassic.pdf
The Formation of Coal - Two Views Considered - http://www.apologeti...prints/coal.pdf
Identifying Leviathan in Job 41 - http://www.apologeti...s/leviathan.pdf
banjosforpeace
Posted 31 January 2005 - 10:57 PM
Let's clarify...
There is actually NO REAL DEBATE between theories of creationism (or the updated "intelligent design") and evolution. Thanks to people who rely on the use of their brain as opposed bowing obediently to a construct of fear, scientific data is worked and re-worked over time to provide the most sound understanding of living things.
The campaign of instituting "intelligent design" into the classroom as a competing theory is a crass political mechanism that has been revisited for decades. The people at the forefront of these local movements are, to say it kindly, religious-types who will always benefit from both the promotion of their agenda and the continued ignorance of their congregations. Their machinations rarely diverge from a small handful of tactics. The themes are clear: "the godless heathens want you to reject your god for their so-called science" or "our children are under seige by people who hate us and our beliefs" or "our beliefs are about community and family while THEY are about atheism and individualism." All of it is the same "us vs. them" framework used to justify bigotry, racism and war for thousands of years. Divide and conquer.
What you will ALWAYS find is that when the leaders of these movements succeed in changing the way a school board treats creationism, they are soon overturned and completely rebuffed. When they fight a bitter and very public battle only to lose, they justify the outcome by repeating their themes with "I told you they were out to get us" attached. Win or lose, they accomplish their ACTUAL goal of polarizing an issue to gain loyalists and build congregations. Oh, and let's not forget how important monetary donations are to the cause.
Sadly, the masses - the everyday folk - are the ones who get caught in the crossfire of this silliness. They are led by their hearts and used as pawns in someones marketing plan.
And before I get flamed, PLEASE NOTICE I didn't say anything about religion being bad. I only pointed out an example of how religion is being used by hucksters and con men for their own ends.
Thank you to MajesticTreeFrog for patiently and meticulously spending time on this and similar threads.
There is actually NO REAL DEBATE between theories of creationism (or the updated "intelligent design") and evolution. Thanks to people who rely on the use of their brain as opposed bowing obediently to a construct of fear, scientific data is worked and re-worked over time to provide the most sound understanding of living things.
The campaign of instituting "intelligent design" into the classroom as a competing theory is a crass political mechanism that has been revisited for decades. The people at the forefront of these local movements are, to say it kindly, religious-types who will always benefit from both the promotion of their agenda and the continued ignorance of their congregations. Their machinations rarely diverge from a small handful of tactics. The themes are clear: "the godless heathens want you to reject your god for their so-called science" or "our children are under seige by people who hate us and our beliefs" or "our beliefs are about community and family while THEY are about atheism and individualism." All of it is the same "us vs. them" framework used to justify bigotry, racism and war for thousands of years. Divide and conquer.
What you will ALWAYS find is that when the leaders of these movements succeed in changing the way a school board treats creationism, they are soon overturned and completely rebuffed. When they fight a bitter and very public battle only to lose, they justify the outcome by repeating their themes with "I told you they were out to get us" attached. Win or lose, they accomplish their ACTUAL goal of polarizing an issue to gain loyalists and build congregations. Oh, and let's not forget how important monetary donations are to the cause.
Sadly, the masses - the everyday folk - are the ones who get caught in the crossfire of this silliness. They are led by their hearts and used as pawns in someones marketing plan.
And before I get flamed, PLEASE NOTICE I didn't say anything about religion being bad. I only pointed out an example of how religion is being used by hucksters and con men for their own ends.
Thank you to MajesticTreeFrog for patiently and meticulously spending time on this and similar threads.
Qop
Posted 11 January 2005 - 08:15 PM
Many people I know (and probably a lot i do not know) are 'scared' of the evolution theory cuz it seems difficult and irrelevant. The thing is, the theory is porbably the simplest that's to it; the discussions that follow are most of the times more difficult and interesting. But for everyone who wants to talk along with us:
The theory (in a nutshell) is as follows:
Variation within a species, heavy competition in nature and inheritance make sure that a species can change bit by bit
An example:
In the midst of the Southpole, more than 100 kilometers from the sea, lives a bird we call snowstormbirds (translated it literally from dutch
if u know english name plz post). Within close surroundings there is only ice and snow, and this little bird has to fly the whole 100 km to sea to catch a fish, eat's half of it, flys back home and gives his bird-girlfriend the other half. The next day she does the same.
But now get this: there is another bird in this area called the southpolehunter. This guy eats the poor birds eggs. So in total there are 2 entire bird-species that rely in that 1 little fish.
Imagine 1 bird that is just a bit better in catching a fish, and flying the 100 km to sea and back, and just a bit better in hidings it's nest from the eggeater-bird. Naturally this bird has a higher chance of survival.
Higher chance of survival means more descendants. These descendants have a big chance to also have acces to daddy's and/or mommy's features. Naturally, these birds survive way better than the ones without the extra's. Thanks mum and dad!
What happens? Cuz the super-birds are better at surviving, they get more baby's, which results in the same: everyone of them gets more baby's too. But because the amount of fish is limited and doesn't change, there is only room for a set amount of birds. So eventually, the super-birds take over the whole population of snowstormbirds.
The theory (in a nutshell) is as follows:
Variation within a species, heavy competition in nature and inheritance make sure that a species can change bit by bit
An example:
In the midst of the Southpole, more than 100 kilometers from the sea, lives a bird we call snowstormbirds (translated it literally from dutch
if u know english name plz post). Within close surroundings there is only ice and snow, and this little bird has to fly the whole 100 km to sea to catch a fish, eat's half of it, flys back home and gives his bird-girlfriend the other half. The next day she does the same. But now get this: there is another bird in this area called the southpolehunter. This guy eats the poor birds eggs. So in total there are 2 entire bird-species that rely in that 1 little fish.
heavy competition in nature
Imagine 1 bird that is just a bit better in catching a fish, and flying the 100 km to sea and back, and just a bit better in hidings it's nest from the eggeater-bird. Naturally this bird has a higher chance of survival.
Variation within a species
Higher chance of survival means more descendants. These descendants have a big chance to also have acces to daddy's and/or mommy's features. Naturally, these birds survive way better than the ones without the extra's. Thanks mum and dad!
inheritance
What happens? Cuz the super-birds are better at surviving, they get more baby's, which results in the same: everyone of them gets more baby's too. But because the amount of fish is limited and doesn't change, there is only room for a set amount of birds. So eventually, the super-birds take over the whole population of snowstormbirds.
RGF
Posted 10 January 2005 - 01:02 PM
First of all I don't believe in the bigbang theory nor do I believe that the earth was created 4004 or so years ago because (but first I may say something that may be off or not right but they are my idea's and opinions)
the theory of the bigbang is just that a theory nothing more no one knows 100% what happened when life started nor can anyone say they do or what they say is 100% fact I could say that I am the King of the free world and have a golden toilette doesn't make it so. I'm not saying its not possible... just improbable.
As for evolution it is possible and does happen in many things "animals, plants, bugs etc" but its really just adapting to ones new or current environment. As for the idea that I came from an ape just because humans and chimpanzee share some of the same characteristics doesn't make it so.
what I'm trying to say is that we needed something to believe in and some people answered the call in matter of speaking... without anything to believe in... we have nothing, we do not know where we came from, we are not sure why we are here or what we are meant to do
the theory of the bigbang is just that a theory nothing more no one knows 100% what happened when life started nor can anyone say they do or what they say is 100% fact I could say that I am the King of the free world and have a golden toilette doesn't make it so. I'm not saying its not possible... just improbable.
As for evolution it is possible and does happen in many things "animals, plants, bugs etc" but its really just adapting to ones new or current environment. As for the idea that I came from an ape just because humans and chimpanzee share some of the same characteristics doesn't make it so.
what I'm trying to say is that we needed something to believe in and some people answered the call in matter of speaking... without anything to believe in... we have nothing, we do not know where we came from, we are not sure why we are here or what we are meant to do
hashbang
Posted 23 December 2004 - 03:22 AM
To further the wise frog ...
organisms adapt as a response to pressure. An excellent example of 'recent' evolution is the work that is currently being done on 'Darwin's Finches' in the Galapagoes. Darwin did really say much about these finches, the name is more for historic 'who found them first' reasons. Anyway, these little finches out in the middle of nowhere have had to adapt an incredible array of lifestyle, eating habits, physical shapes, etc. to survive on these islands in very rugged conditions.
I'm unsure why people tend to fixate on Darwin. Watson and Crick discovered the basic structure of DNA but there have been countless refinements since their initial discovery. Today, a serious researcher would not base all their knowledge of DNA based upon what Watson and Crick published. Do we still have debates about whether DNA exists?
The issue with evolution is that it undermines a large fundementalists religious ideology who insisit on beliving the earch/universe and everything was created 4004 years ago (or somewhere in that vicinty). And that the old testament is, in fact, a literal history of the world (nevermind the dinosaurs).
go figure ... I think it's a case of hidding ones intellect in the closet of faith.
cheers
hashbang
organisms adapt as a response to pressure. An excellent example of 'recent' evolution is the work that is currently being done on 'Darwin's Finches' in the Galapagoes. Darwin did really say much about these finches, the name is more for historic 'who found them first' reasons. Anyway, these little finches out in the middle of nowhere have had to adapt an incredible array of lifestyle, eating habits, physical shapes, etc. to survive on these islands in very rugged conditions.
I'm unsure why people tend to fixate on Darwin. Watson and Crick discovered the basic structure of DNA but there have been countless refinements since their initial discovery. Today, a serious researcher would not base all their knowledge of DNA based upon what Watson and Crick published. Do we still have debates about whether DNA exists?
The issue with evolution is that it undermines a large fundementalists religious ideology who insisit on beliving the earch/universe and everything was created 4004 years ago (or somewhere in that vicinty). And that the old testament is, in fact, a literal history of the world (nevermind the dinosaurs).
go figure ... I think it's a case of hidding ones intellect in the closet of faith.
cheers
hashbang
