Evolution Is A Theory On Which You Base A Religion
- Thread starter hitch420
- Start date
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
I tried to find anything that says clones of clones will end up with different plants, but I couldn't (in the 5 minutes I looked) but I could see it since one of those clones may have mutated. It would not make say a pot plant into a tomato plant, but some alteration of the origional pot plant. This is consistent with evolution.hmm i figured you would know the answer to that.. maybe you forgot, noproblem.
the easy quick answer adam and eve sinned that sin brought evil, sickness, disease, death and (umm yeah i think thats it lol) into the world.
They say if you take a clone from a clone from a clone many many many times you end up with a differiant plant... u think thats true? anyways kinda like people god made adam and eve perfect which is why they could marry brother and sister with no defects but after awhile copy after copy things get messed up (because of sin of course)
been doing alittle homework
theory of evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. and scientific law must be 100% correct right? evolution is not a law so does that mean it has errors? alittle lost can you fill me in?
are there any species with out any links?
Now for the human being mangles because of sin. They would have had mutations all throughout history, and would have had to have had some explanation of it in the bible. So toss it to 'evil beings' similar to what I said about pagan religions and demon gods in the poisonous bushes. It is easier than trying to explain how god screwed up if he is infallible.
Back to science though, I think you should understand something called an asymptote.
Basically if you imagine being in a room. You start on one side and walk half way across it. Then you walk halfway across again, and again and again. The thing is hypothetically you are never able to cross the room all the way, since you can only go 1/2 of the distance left.
But what happens is that as you get so close to the wall, essentially you are at it.
But as you go further and further down the numbers are very precise. Like if the room was 10 feet long you would eventually be at 9.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999996. Essentially 10, but never really 10 (Hope I still have you here).
This is how science works. That asymptote of scientific learning infinitely approaches the 'truth' but can never truly say that it is 100% true.
Everything that we add in puts it closer and closer, but it will never be enough, because everything is constantly changing, even the new things that change over time will eventually have to be added in. So again it will never be possible to be 100%, but that does not mean it won't be very precise.
The bible is set up to scrap this, and just close out everything that does not jive by saying 'god's will'. In math it is called 'undefined'. The bible is set up to stop people from questioning things, and just submit to their will. That is why I feel it is obsolete now. The bucket that filled the information in the bible has long overflown, that is why there are so many teachings of it, to explain away things that people don't want to believe. Sciences bucket is again like that asymptote, it will have a fill point, but it will always be able to contain what is learned, because it can change with it. Even though it will never be 100% 'truth' because there is no such thing.
fish601
Active Member
Thats is consistent with evolution?
just to clear this up
what do you believe humans came from?
I agree that a pot plant will never turn into a tomato plant
I believe that one dog can produce long haird dogs short dogs tall dogs floppy eard dogs no tail dogs...... but they are all still dogs and will allways be dogs they will never produce a human, do you agree?
P
PadawanBater
Guest
This is how it goes..
-chemicals in the oceans in the early earth formed proteins
-those proteins formed chains of DNA
-that DNA formed the first prokaryote cells, cells without a nucleus, the very first stages of life
-those prokaryote cells formed eukaryotes, similar to modern cells
-from the eukaryote cells we get the very basic organisms
-then, about 610 million years ago, multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans
-500 million years ago, mostly plants and fungi on the land, followed by arthropods
-300 million years ago we get the first signs of amphibians
-200-300 million years ago reptiles dominated the land, not big dinosaur reptiles, I'm talking small reptiles
-200 million years ago are the first signs of mammals, evolving from a different branch of the reptile lineage
-100 million years ago are the first signs of birds, also evolving from a different branch of the reptile lineage
It all fits with the evolutionary model, the data and evidence was being gathered long before Darwin ever proposed his theory, so I'm not exactly sure how the people who discovered all the artifacts supporting the theory of evolution, even before it ever existed, tried to manipulate the evidence to fit into a non existent theory... but I guess you guys don't really care too much about logic...
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Not a human being in the way that you or I think of them, but it is possible they turn into another intelligent being. Well .. hmm... I guess if you have infinite number of alterations over an infinite amount of time, at some point the evolution could in theory work itself around to it, but it is very unlikely.
A dog is a dog correct. But lets look at them. All the different shapes and sizes and types. They all have common ancestors that have been tracked back to east asia. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s732808.htm
So once they were established we crossed them with different wild dogs and have gotten very wide arrays.
So at what point is a 'dog' no longer considered a dog? Is this:
Getting closer to a different species?
Eventually if the genes get too different they will not be able to mate.
Like Mules. They are the offspring of Horses and Donkeys. Donkeys have 2 less chromosomes than horses. But they are still even numbers. So when they have the offspring (donkey) that donkey has an odd number of chromosomes and is infertile as a result.
They were once at somepoint the same animal but through time they had a major split and now are close enough to mate and reproduce, but not enough to allow their babies to do so.
fish601
Active Member
"chemicals in the oceans in the early earth formed proteins" how do they know that happen? no matter how you look at it , its a belief
so in the beginning water created?
fish601
Active Member
i totally agree with that but i do not believe that they will ever produce a rat
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
No but your thinking narrow with it, a rat has already been made. It would be something different.
The mutation will be totally new and unique (basically) with the evolution of those animals. To make a rat you have to go backwards a few hundred million years to get back to that point.
But think about it, is a rat a mouse? No, but you can tell that they are very close just by looking at them. Now by looking at a chuiwawa and a Irish wolfhoud it would be hard to call them the same animal if you had never heard or seen of a dog. But through DNA and genetic testing you would be able to tell that they were the same family.
That new animal that comes from a dog, would not be a rat, or dog, it would be something new and unique. And only through genetic testing would you really be able to understand that it is a new species. Infact it is possible that it has already happened, but people have not gotten it tested to see.
The mutation will be totally new and unique (basically) with the evolution of those animals. To make a rat you have to go backwards a few hundred million years to get back to that point.
But think about it, is a rat a mouse? No, but you can tell that they are very close just by looking at them. Now by looking at a chuiwawa and a Irish wolfhoud it would be hard to call them the same animal if you had never heard or seen of a dog. But through DNA and genetic testing you would be able to tell that they were the same family.
That new animal that comes from a dog, would not be a rat, or dog, it would be something new and unique. And only through genetic testing would you really be able to understand that it is a new species. Infact it is possible that it has already happened, but people have not gotten it tested to see.
mared juwan
Well-Known Member
I know I said I was out but I would still like to discuss evolutionary topics. I just won't being trying to "convince" anybody anymore. I've realized that Fish admitting we (the evolution supporters) are right is just as likely as us admitting he's right.... so never ever in a million years. Don't even reply to this post, Fish, it is not directed at you.
One point I think that has been larger ignored thus far is the impact of isolation on species development. Darwin specifically chose his locations because they were remote and isolated. The extreme diversity and uniqueness of species there indicated a deeper truth to him. As with the gnarly looking dogs hanimmal posted, the limitations on population size forced a certain amount of inbreeding. However, nature is not as cruel as man and those hideous monster dogs would most likely not have been fit enough to survive in the wild. The only effects of inbreeding that are sustained over the long term are traits which facilitate survival. It is very important to realize that genetic survival is two-pronged. The animal must be adapted to the environment in order to obtain food and avoid predation, but also (and in many cases with regard to evolutionary development, more importantly) they must be attractive to the opposite sex. For example a lion's mane is in fact a hinderance to its survival in the wild. It is hot and a perfect home for nasty parasites. But studies have been done which show that the lionesses find the male with the biggest darkest mane most attractive. In this sense evolution is not perfect but an endless cycle of trial and error. When populations are constrained the process is accelerated because inbreeding essentially increases the number of faces on the die cast with every new generation of a species. There are more available outcomes due to mutation. The vast majority of mutations are a hinderance to the animal so increasing the number increases the chances of finding the rare advantages traits. Not meant to convince anyone. Just food for thought.
One point I think that has been larger ignored thus far is the impact of isolation on species development. Darwin specifically chose his locations because they were remote and isolated. The extreme diversity and uniqueness of species there indicated a deeper truth to him. As with the gnarly looking dogs hanimmal posted, the limitations on population size forced a certain amount of inbreeding. However, nature is not as cruel as man and those hideous monster dogs would most likely not have been fit enough to survive in the wild. The only effects of inbreeding that are sustained over the long term are traits which facilitate survival. It is very important to realize that genetic survival is two-pronged. The animal must be adapted to the environment in order to obtain food and avoid predation, but also (and in many cases with regard to evolutionary development, more importantly) they must be attractive to the opposite sex. For example a lion's mane is in fact a hinderance to its survival in the wild. It is hot and a perfect home for nasty parasites. But studies have been done which show that the lionesses find the male with the biggest darkest mane most attractive. In this sense evolution is not perfect but an endless cycle of trial and error. When populations are constrained the process is accelerated because inbreeding essentially increases the number of faces on the die cast with every new generation of a species. There are more available outcomes due to mutation. The vast majority of mutations are a hinderance to the animal so increasing the number increases the chances of finding the rare advantages traits. Not meant to convince anyone. Just food for thought.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
That is interesting about the lions manes, I had no idea thank you.
This is why the issue of evolution is so important to me, that even though I am not going to get a degree in anything close to it (other than the math I guess) I think that it is one of the most important thing we can do is study it.
If we can really get it figured out and we can get passed our insecurities we would be able to understand how and why we feel the ways we do. So that when we have x response, we know it is due to this evolutionary trait, and came from this animal, and can try to logically figure out if the response is what we want it to be.
Also it would help us to get an idea of what animals and humans changes are about and understanding things like nutrition better. It is amazing how important it is.
mared juwan
Well-Known Member
Yes, like our friend Fish I think that the breeding of dogs is not a perfect corollary to my point but for different reasons(wait...I mean I didn't have a point LOL). Keep in mind the DNA structure of dogs and wolves are more prone to mutation than most other mammals. The different breeds of dogs are a direct result of man's intervention. We supply the "environmental factors" that determine which traits are desirable. Nature has a very different formula. We don't care about the dogs survival, we care about how the dogs can aide our survival. The natural selection process makes it all about what is best for the dog. It would not be bred to be friendly or pretty or obedient. We have actually brought the dog backwards in evolutionary terms when you consider that we started the process with wolves. A wolf's ears are pointed upwards when it's an adult but as a juvenile they are floppy and flimsy. The ears stand upright only once the wolf has become a mature member of the pack. It is an aggressive trait. Because man has bred mostly juvenile and submissive traits into the dog population you see many breeds with floppy ears. Notice most "aggressive breeds" (pit bull, rottweiler, german shepard, bull dog) all have pointy ears - the trait of a mature and aggressive animal. So in a sense the transition from wild wolf to tame wolf to dog is going in the opposite direction as nature would usually determine. Just more food for thought.
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
I never even considered we'd take the jesus out of him, clearly that wouldn't be possible but at one point it did appear we might get somewhere in convincing him evolution is at least real. Not something to joke about in the same sense we would poke fun at his religion. It's not a competing religion, it's not a religion period.
There are many "believers" even of the same faith as fish who do accept both. Only in some peoples minds are they truly mutually exclusive.
I only got fed up when it became clear he was just jerking us off and wasting our time. The same questions asked and answered and then asked right over again. Not even trying to learn anything or giving any credit to anything other than cristian sites and fox news...
fish601
Active Member
scientist all over the world claim evolution is false
fish601
Active Member
evolution is random? why cant it go back to a rat
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
This is all you have to say? Yep, done with you.
Brazko
Well-Known Member
What part of Evolution do you see as False? You believe in Micro Evolution, but not Macro Evolution correct?
ReggaeGanja
Active Member
well there is a creator and it created a begining of everything and the creator has been around for eternity..