They are allowed to speak hell in the US these people run for government office. It's just the scientific community has gotten so tired of dealing with the same arguments day after day after day, that they react violently when people bring up an argument they've heard hundreds of times and disproven. And no matter what, most times the opponents won't listen, so it's pointless hence a less than charitable reaction to opponents of evolution.Nieroshai said:Then why is it that when for the sake of knowledge I ask questions like the one right below your last post, I often get yelled at for questioning the most stable scientific law ever discovered? The fact remains that anyone who questions evolution for any reason is given no chance to speak outside friends' circles and religious groups because we never even GET to the part where we counter the theory or propose amendmments. Like how the UN climate research department brags about every single member believing in global warming, when in fact they silently can everyone who disbelieves. I'm just saying, it would be fine if opponents got the chance to speak, but thaat will never happen unless in the name of the scientific method the theory be allowed to be questioned without a witch hunt.BioHazardMan said:Well there we goUszi said:There are actually more historians who deny the holocaust then their are biologists who deny evolution. Fun fact.BioHazardMan said:There is so much evidence for evolution that denying it is like denying the holocaust, most people just automatically deny it in the face of huge evidence because it would bring their faith to shambles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
It's not that you don't have a voice, but people like you take teaching both sides to an extreme. If we have to teach both Evolution AND Creationism, then we will also have to teach "Did the Holocaust actually happen?" or "World War 2, the non-existent hoax of the 20th century"Nieroshai said:Then why is it that when for the sake of knowledge I ask questions like the one right below your last post, I often get yelled at for questioning the most stable scientific law ever discovered? The fact remains that anyone who questions evolution for any reason is given no chance to speak outside friends' circles and religious groups because we never even GET to the part where we counter the theory or propose amendmments. Like how the UN climate research department brags about every single member believing in global warming, when in fact they silently can everyone who disbelieves. I'm just saying, it would be fine if opponents got the chance to speak, but thaat will never happen unless in the name of the scientific method the theory be allowed to be questioned without a witch hunt.BioHazardMan said:Well there we goUszi said:There are actually more historians who deny the holocaust then their are biologists who deny evolution. Fun fact.BioHazardMan said:There is so much evidence for evolution that denying it is like denying the holocaust, most people just automatically deny it in the face of huge evidence because it would bring their faith to shambles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
Okay there are SO many explanations for this i almost didn't bother posting this since you broadcaster either " troll" or " didn't bother to see if my argument was valid" Seriously google "The evolution of the human eye" or watch the video series " why people laugh at creationists" as i recall it explains this sort of thing pretty well.Mimsofthedawg said:I just don't buy it... look at the complexities of a human heart and explain to me how natural selection and random genetic mutations created such a perfect organ. Chiefly, explain to me how come "evolution" chose such a complex mechanism when a whole host of other systems could work. Every loop, crevis, nook, cranny, detail (both large and small) has a unique purpose in the heart. Not to mention over a single individuals life the heart "evolves". The heart of a fetus is RADICALLY different from the heart of an adult... How does that spring up from natural selection? I sincerely makes about as much sense to me as my creamy mashed potatoes spontaneously covering themselves with butter, gravy, pepper, and salt... and then giving me the steak and broccoli too.randomsix said:If the first paragraph above were true, then there would be no evolution. To my knowledge it is not.omega 616 said:If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.
If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the enviroment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop it'self being food?
That isn't how evolution works. You take an existing animal and nature keeps killing off the members of its species that are the worst at surviving. The result is that ones with traits which are better suited to the environment live and give those traits to their children.
I'm not sure where you got this idea of evolution, but it isn't good. If my explanation isn't good enough, I suggest you find some entry level text and read that.
It's not necessarily that I believe in anything else, I just don't understand how this could happen.
I guess life's a miracle... but aren't miracles from God? hmmm...............
well its a slow process with minor changes each generation.omega 616 said:I was just thinking about this topic and was wondering how does it work?
this is just a guess here but i would think in the very begining things would basicallyy be omnivores. and through evolution they diversified into herbivores and carnivores.omega 616 said:Why when all creatures great and small, crawling out of the primordial ooze, did some animals evolve to be herbivores/carnivores/omnivores?
last i heard vevom is actually expensive in evolution terms so if you can live with out it its better to not have it.omega 616 said:How did some evolve to have venom that can do all kinds of fucked up shit and others didn't?
my guess would be that having a deer shed its hair wouldnt be useful. and running fast is enough for it to survive.omega 616 said:How can a bird eating tarantula have the ability to throw it's hairs off it's body to defend itself but a deers only form of defence is it has eyes on the side of it's head and can run pretty quick?
evolution isnt about suddenly having an extra leg or horn. its little minor probably unnoticable things. so why would the mother eat a baby that is unnoticably different.omega 616 said:If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.
the fact that it got killed is what spurs evolution forward. if it survied long enough to reproduce that its basically at a good stage. animals need to live long enough to reproduce to allow evolution. so the only animals that survive are the ones that are best suited to survival. so it can pass on it better suited genes. and after generations the population might have a different coloured fur in respose to a new enviroment.omega 616 said:If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the environment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop itself being food?
Heck, Darwin explained it way back when he wrote origin of speciesMimsofthedawg said:ok, will do, I'll get back to you in a moment.Ben Hussong said:Okay there are SO many explanations for this i almost didn't bother posting this since you broadcaster either " troll" or " didn't bother to see if my argument was valid" Seriously google "The evolution of the human eye" or watch the video series " why people laugh at creationists" as i recall it explains this sort of thing pretty well.Mimsofthedawg said:I just don't buy it... look at the complexities of a human heart and explain to me how natural selection and random genetic mutations created such a perfect organ. Chiefly, explain to me how come "evolution" chose such a complex mechanism when a whole host of other systems could work. Every loop, crevis, nook, cranny, detail (both large and small) has a unique purpose in the heart. Not to mention over a single individuals life the heart "evolves". The heart of a fetus is RADICALLY different from the heart of an adult... How does that spring up from natural selection? I sincerely makes about as much sense to me as my creamy mashed potatoes spontaneously covering themselves with butter, gravy, pepper, and salt... and then giving me the steak and broccoli too.randomsix said:If the first paragraph above were true, then there would be no evolution. To my knowledge it is not.omega 616 said:If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.
If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the enviroment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop it'self being food?
That isn't how evolution works. You take an existing animal and nature keeps killing off the members of its species that are the worst at surviving. The result is that ones with traits which are better suited to the environment live and give those traits to their children.
I'm not sure where you got this idea of evolution, but it isn't good. If my explanation isn't good enough, I suggest you find some entry level text and read that.
It's not necessarily that I believe in anything else, I just don't understand how this could happen.
I guess life's a miracle... but aren't miracles from God? hmmm...............
Actually that's not how Giraffe's long necks evolved. You can easily see this simply by observing Giraffes, and noting that most of their food isn't really that high, they don't have to use their full length necks to eat.Jonluw said:The key here is time and large populations. Lots of time.
Imagine if there is a race of horse-like creatures living in fields. They do not eat grass, instead they eat the leaves off trees. Now say there are other creatures living with these creatures in their fields, eating from the same trees. Neither of the two species of creatures are tall enough to reach the leaves at the top, so they all have to compete for the leaves at the bottom of the trees.
Now, just like all humans are different, all (advanced) animals are different as well. This means that - just like with humans - some of the creatures that are born will have a longer neck than the others. Reaching leaves that haven't yet been eaten by other creatures will be marginally easier for the taller animals. This means that specimens with a longer neck will have a slightly higher rate of survival, and will therefore have a higher chance of procreating successfully.
Over the course of thousands upon thousands of years, the species as a whole will obviously end up with longer necks, since a long neck is an inheritable trait.
And then you have giraffes.
I didn't say you were a troll I said your post felt like either a troll, or someone who hadn't looked into it to me because the " irreducible complexity" * think that's the name of what your talking about* argument has been done to death There's like 30 videos in that series pretty sure they get pretty in depth about things, also look up PZ meyers or read Origins of species.Mimsofthedawg said:ok, so I watched the video, and the basic problem that I have with it is that it's a narrow minded view of how the biology of a developing animal works. To put it simply, you can't just have a single layer of cells that suddenly develops into an eye simply because it gets more "concave" or lens grow over it or whatever. each part of those things are created from entirely different segments of a developing fetus. The human eye, for example, is composed of several different materials, ranging from muscles to nerves to dense connective tissue. There are also distinct differences in eye structure from a "primitive group of light sensitive cells" as compared to a complex eye. For example, how is it that a nervous system developed with all its intricacies that it would be able to connect to the brain to process the information? And don't get me started on hormones, which in a developing animal turn "on" or "off" a variety of different genes. Oh and there's the different layers of cells in a fetus. and and and... There's just too much for something to spontaneously be created like that. it's not like we're talking about "the dampening of the light sensitive patch, creating an area better suited for movement". We're talking about thousands of different processes that have to change simultaneously in order to achieve a simple result. I just don't see how it could logically happen.Ben Hussong said:Heck, Darwin explained it way back when he wrote origin of speciesMimsofthedawg said:ok, will do, I'll get back to you in a moment.Ben Hussong said:Okay there are SO many explanations for this i almost didn't bother posting this since you broadcaster either " troll" or " didn't bother to see if my argument was valid" Seriously google "The evolution of the human eye" or watch the video series " why people laugh at creationists" as i recall it explains this sort of thing pretty well.Mimsofthedawg said:I just don't buy it... look at the complexities of a human heart and explain to me how natural selection and random genetic mutations created such a perfect organ. Chiefly, explain to me how come "evolution" chose such a complex mechanism when a whole host of other systems could work. Every loop, crevis, nook, cranny, detail (both large and small) has a unique purpose in the heart. Not to mention over a single individuals life the heart "evolves". The heart of a fetus is RADICALLY different from the heart of an adult... How does that spring up from natural selection? I sincerely makes about as much sense to me as my creamy mashed potatoes spontaneously covering themselves with butter, gravy, pepper, and salt... and then giving me the steak and broccoli too.randomsix said:If the first paragraph above were true, then there would be no evolution. To my knowledge it is not.omega 616 said:If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.
If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the enviroment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop it'self being food?
That isn't how evolution works. You take an existing animal and nature keeps killing off the members of its species that are the worst at surviving. The result is that ones with traits which are better suited to the environment live and give those traits to their children.
I'm not sure where you got this idea of evolution, but it isn't good. If my explanation isn't good enough, I suggest you find some entry level text and read that.
It's not necessarily that I believe in anything else, I just don't understand how this could happen.
I guess life's a miracle... but aren't miracles from God? hmmm...............
And I'm not a troll and I'm not an idiot. I'm actually a bio-engineer major. In order to make these accusations on the evolution of something as "simple" as an eye, you have to make a lot of assumptions... and I'm sorry if I'm skeptical that I don't think the other 999 things have to also be changed for the change in the 1000th thing to work properly.
I believe the fundamental misunderstanding you have is apparent in the first sentence above. It's not like the heart just happened like throwing a 6 twenty times in a row would happen. It's not about just random in the sense that all mutations are equal. If a mutation is bad, it dies off.Mimsofthedawg said:I just don't buy it... look at the complexities of a human heart and explain to me how natural selection and random genetic mutations created such a perfect organ. Chiefly, explain to me how come "evolution" chose such a complex mechanism when a whole host of other systems could work. Every loop, crevis, nook, cranny, detail (both large and small) has a unique purpose in the heart. Not to mention over a single individuals life the heart "evolves". The heart of a fetus is RADICALLY different from the heart of an adult... How does that spring up from natural selection? I sincerely makes about as much sense to me as my creamy mashed potatoes spontaneously covering themselves with butter, gravy, pepper, and salt... and then giving me the steak and broccoli too.randomsix said:If the first paragraph above were true, then there would be no evolution. To my knowledge it is not.omega 616 said:If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.
If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the enviroment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop it'self being food?
That isn't how evolution works. You take an existing animal and nature keeps killing off the members of its species that are the worst at surviving. The result is that ones with traits which are better suited to the environment live and give those traits to their children.
I'm not sure where you got this idea of evolution, but it isn't good. If my explanation isn't good enough, I suggest you find some entry level text and read that.
It's not necessarily that I believe in anything else, I just don't understand how this could happen.
I guess life's a miracle... but aren't miracles from God? hmmm...............
I say the same thing about you. removing the anti part of course.Aurora Firestorm said:Whoever recommended Dawkins to you, don't listen. Don't support Dawkins. He's an anti-religious fanatic who needs a sanity check.
but I guess we'll have to take your word for it...Mimsofthedawg said:a LONGGGG ass time ago, I once heard a top, atheist scientist refute almost everything that Dawkins said. Twas interesting.
wellll said sir!BioHazardMan said:It's not that you don't have a voice, but people like you take teaching both sides to an extreme. If we have to teach both Evolution AND Creationism, then we will also have to teach "Did the Holocaust actually happen?" or "World War 2, the non-existent hoax of the 20th century"Nieroshai said:Then why is it that when for the sake of knowledge I ask questions like the one right below your last post, I often get yelled at for questioning the most stable scientific law ever discovered? The fact remains that anyone who questions evolution for any reason is given no chance to speak outside friends' circles and religious groups because we never even GET to the part where we counter the theory or propose amendmments. Like how the UN climate research department brags about every single member believing in global warming, when in fact they silently can everyone who disbelieves. I'm just saying, it would be fine if opponents got the chance to speak, but thaat will never happen unless in the name of the scientific method the theory be allowed to be questioned without a witch hunt.BioHazardMan said:Well there we goUszi said:There are actually more historians who deny the holocaust then their are biologists who deny evolution. Fun fact.BioHazardMan said:There is so much evidence for evolution that denying it is like denying the holocaust, most people just automatically deny it in the face of huge evidence because it would bring their faith to shambles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
You do have a voice, but it's irrational, so stop trying to put your "theories" into a scientific classroom.
Though I have to agree with you to a certain point, it's important to remain skeptical, which I think you should re-examine yourself.
I think you might have to study a bit harder, chum. Evolution is not a spontaneous process and no one said it was. Life has existed for 3.5 Ga and the very gradual, very slow change of life is evidently seen in the fossil record. Every single organ and type of tissue in your body can be traced back and their gradual sophistication needed to support larger and more complex organisms can easily be studied.Mimsofthedawg said:And I'm not a troll and I'm not an idiot. I'm actually a bio-engineer major. In order to make these accusations on the evolution of something as "simple" as an eye, you have to make a lot of assumptions... and I'm sorry if I'm skeptical that I don't think the other 999 things have to also be changed for the change in the 1000th thing to work properly.
Well, most of these specific examples are probably wildly inaccurate. Honestly, I think that Giraffes may have not even evolved from horses, I don't remember. Cursory google search says it was probably an antelope or gazelle. I'm just trying to go to an extreme, to demonstrate how even minor differences can accumulate into huge changes over the immense amount of time that evolution works in.Jonluw said:You know, I think we're underestimating the individual differences in a species here.
It's not like the length of the horses' necks vary only by 1 mm between individuals. That would be silly. Take a look at humans: Some are nearly 4 feet tall, some are 6 feet.
I agree with you, yes. I just felt the need to point out that there are significant differences between individuals with animals as well, because I was afraid it might all seem a little too far fetched if 1 mm was to have a significant impact.
I mean, it might, but maybe not.