Evolution
- Thread starter omega 616
- Start date
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:
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:
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.
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:
well its a slow process with minor changes each generation.omega 616 said:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
anyway what i said might not be so coherent im watching scrubs.
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:
Also, think about it, what about baby giraffes? They do alright don't they? Otherwise there'd be no giraffes.
No, giraffes necks evolved for fighting to impress the ladies.
If I learned anything it's that you should never take anything as pure truth, no matter how certain it seem.
Yeah, I accept evolution as the most likely theory, but I won't pretend it's only possible truth. But all we ever had was belief in theories, so it's what I gotta go off of XD
Yeah, I accept evolution as the most likely theory, but I won't pretend it's only possible truth. But all we ever had was belief in theories, so it's what I gotta go off of XD
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:
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:
And a the heart as a perfect organ? Really? People's hearts break down and people have heart attacks every day. Hell my heart grew with a goddamn hole in it. If that's perfection to you I don't want to know what you would accept as adequate.
You also have to remember the kind of timescales we are talking about here. Think on the order of hundreds of millions of years. Given the proliferation of early (precambrian and cambrian) life, it's not all that far fetched to say that everything happened randomly. After all, sit a monkey down at a typewriter and its only a matter of time until it finishes Hamlet.
And about your argument; it's an argument from ignorance, which is universally recognized as invalid by philosophers. It boils down to: I, personally, don't understand how this could happen on its own, so therefor someone must be responsible.
And even the eye: Start with a patch of light sensitive cells, then add a clear protective coating, next is increased object recognition, then gradual increases in concavity as a lensing effect enhances precision, then a way to move it around with respect to the "head,"... soon enough you get a fully functioning eye through very small alterations. It's not like this is impossible. Even if all of these mutations are random it's possible because every baby born for millions and millions of years has the possibility of advancing the chain.
I say the same thing about you. removing the anti part of course.Aurora Firestorm said:
but I guess we'll have to take your word for it...Mimsofthedawg said:
[hr/]
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:
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:
Go back and read the Biology 101 textbook you would have had to buy (if you really are a bio-engineer major) and read the part on evolution again. Actually, read the whole thing again.
it simply becomes better. the better survivor gets more females or males, and thus more children are born with the new traits that make it better, so others are born with the trait, which in turn get more females or males than those without the trait, and on and on and on. who do you think is better at getting food, a rattlesnake sized snake with no venom or one with venom? which one do you think would fend of other males most? thats the one that makes the most babies. i dont get cow though. seriously darwin, what the fuck happened there? to slow to run, to wimpy to fight unless its a bull, but mostly females, and very large. its like if the 1000 pound man was an animal
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:
In truth, evolution would factor in neck size, countless genes for neck size, the different ways a body changes to accommodate a neck size, other advantages to neck size, disadvantages to neck size, complex behavioral interaction in a herd of future giraffes based on neck size, how increasing neck size influenced specific tree varieties, in what order, over what time frame...understanding exactly how it worked is like going through every possible game of chess in the universe. You have to look at broad strategies, and make an educated guess, and keep supporting that guess until it is pretty much guaranteed to be accurate. The 1 MM difference in neck size could be the accumulation of variables akin to a chess game where a pawn is moved 1 space on its first move instead of 2 at one point in the game, leading to a completely different outcome.