Print

[Behemoth5]

Behemoth5

Re: Evolution

No, not Behe. he's an idiot.

*cries*

Personally, I'm an atheist, but I can respect people of faith. I'm totally okay with a respectable, evidenciary debate, but a lot of the time it turns into a flame-fest. I just really hate it when people bash the faith (or lack thereof) of others.

Behe's Kirby Factory

I ♥ Sol

• 

[Swoftu]

Swoftu

Re: Evolution

But why the hell is it still called Evolution Theory?

If that's the best argument you have, then just leave this topic. You obviously have no knowledge of the scientific method. You should ask yourself "If gravity is so well proven, why is it called the Theory of Gravity?" Theory used in science has different connotations than theory used in normal everyday speak.

[dehvknull]

dehvknull

Re: Evolution

But why the hell is it still called Evolution Theory?

If that's the best argument you have, then just leave this topic. You obviously have no knowledge of the scientific method. You should ask yourself "If gravity is so well proven, why is it called the Theory of Gravity?" Theory used in science has different connotations than theory used in normal everyday speak.

I beat you to it.

[NeoGeo-x]

NeoGeo-x

Re: Evolution

@Dascu: It's pathetic to see you wanting 2awesome4apossum apologize to you! Because you're the one that should said "I'm sorry" to 2awesome4apossum since you're the the one that started being an ass against him, not he to you!

Pathethic.. hmm yes.. just take that word to heart for a moment.. then reread your own post and start thinking about the word.

You'll see that the meaning of the word pathetic is broader than you hold it for.

My name is Pitt

[MG-Zero]

MG-Zero

Re: Evolution

Well you guys that are saying evolution doesn't exist...do you mean to tell us all that humans just suddenly appeared some 200,000 years ago (don't quote me on that number, it's been a while since Earth Science class )?

Another thing, living fossils (sharks and such).  They're organisms that haven't changed at all over the years, so what would set them apart from not..living fossils?  Things that have changed, which means that they would have evolved in some way.

i love big weenies and i cannot lie

[dehvknull]

dehvknull

Re: Evolution

Well you guys that are saying evolution doesn't exist...do you mean to tell us all that humans just suddenly appeared some 200,000 years ago (don't quote me on that number, it's been a while since Earth Science class )?

Another thing, living fossils (sharks and such).  They're organisms that haven't changed at all over the years, so what would set them apart from not..living fossils?  Things that have changed, which means that they would have evolved in some way.

They HAVE evolved in some ways, but just not much since they didn't need to. At least, that's as far as I know.

[MG-Zero]

MG-Zero

Re: Evolution

^^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil

Basically they have no close relatives.  The ceolecanth that I mentioned earlier is also on that list.

i love big weenies and i cannot lie

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Evolution

Haha!  Back in the day when we actually were able to have debates, they'd go more like this:
http://www.zfgc.com/index.php?topic=2693.0

I know a lot more about evolution than I did since then, and I'd very much like to debate it (ah, hell... there's nothing to be debated, it's freaking FACT >_>).  Let me explain why evolution is just an idea, not a "scientific" theory (it's a theory in the general sense of the word).  Unlike most of you "evolutionists", I've actually read a lot of Darwin's stuff on natural selection (he didn't even come up with most of the ideas that we know to be "evolution").

By definition, a scientific theory has to have a series of empirical tests that would prove it false (if fulfilled-- it's the concept of having disprovability, something neccessary for it to be considered a scientific theory).  A scientific theory is very commonly accepted as fact (thusly, we have the fact which we know to be "Einstein's theory of relativity"), so whenever someone says "it's just a theory" (as I used to in that old evolution topic), I roll my eyes.

Darwin's empirical test of disprovability is as follows (this is an exact quote from his book): "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

So instead of giving us a scientific theory, he gives us an idea that is impossible to disprove saying, "Well you can't say it's not possible."

The problem in evolution is the idea of random mutations.  It makes sense for natural selection to happen within a species.  And while there aren't any solid examples of this, I believe it to be true (Sol and I were talking about it earlier, and he and I are on the same page as far as natural selection in regards to immunity within the human race and modern medicine).  But how could an eye be created by random mutation?  (The Behe example, that will undoubtedly get some of you very angry.)

You see, in order for an eye to work, you have to have the eye-- the cornia, a nerve to process it with, and if you have a nerve you already have to have the brain... NONE of it will work until ALL of these components (and more) are fulfilled.  And this all has to happen by random mutation.  The concept of survival of the fittest is a problem in developing an eye too, because all of these traits and mutations that are neccessary in the process of creating an eye have to be desireable and make the organism the "fittest"... this has to happen before we even have a functioning eye.  See the problem?

[TCGamer]

TCGamer

Re: Evolution

Okay, did all the different species on Earth just pop out of thin air? You can't prove the evolution theory completely, but there's absolutely no proof for the creationism theory (other than the bible which doesn't count)

[NeoGeo-x]

NeoGeo-x

Re: Evolution

You see, in order for an eye to work, you have to have the eye-- the cornia, a nerve to process it with, and if you have a nerve you already have to have the brain... NONE of it will work until ALL of these components (and more) are fulfilled.  And this all has to happen by random mutation.  The concept of survival of the fittest is a problem in developing an eye too, because all of these traits and mutations that are neccessary in the process of creating an eye have to be desireable and make the organism the "fittest"... this has to happen before we even have a functioning eye.  See the problem?

No, I do not. You're applying the typical religious argument why evolution must be a scam.

Evolution of a species or even a specific organ doesn't happen over night. Why do you think the human race took so long to develop and wasn't spawned the same day as the Earth was created. It takes lots of time. And when I say "lots", I mean millions of years. If you see what scientists think to have been the first species to walk the face of the earth, then you can see I'm indeed right; these creatures indeed had no eyes.

My name is Pitt

[dehvknull]

dehvknull

Re: Evolution

Haha!  Back in the day when we actually were able to have debates, they'd go more like this:
http://www.zfgc.com/index.php?topic=2693.0

I know a lot more about evolution than I did since then, and I'd very much like to debate it (ah, hell... there's nothing to be debated, it's freaking FACT >_>).  Let me explain why evolution is just an idea, not a "scientific" theory (it's a theory in the general sense of the word).  Unlike most of you "evolutionists", I've actually read a lot of Darwin's stuff on natural selection (he didn't even come up with most of the ideas that we know to be "evolution").

By definition, a scientific theory has to have a series of empirical tests that would prove it false (if fulfilled-- it's the concept of having disprovability, something neccessary for it to be considered a scientific theory).  A scientific theory is very commonly accepted as fact (thusly, we have the fact which we know to be "Einstein's theory of relativity"), so whenever someone says "it's just a theory" (as I used to in that old evolution topic), I roll my eyes.

Darwin's empirical test of disprovability is as follows (this is an exact quote from his book): "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

So instead of giving us a scientific theory, he gives us an idea that is impossible to disprove saying, "Well you can't say it's not possible."

The problem in evolution is the idea of random mutations.  It makes sense for natural selection to happen within a species.  And while there aren't any solid examples of this, I believe it to be true (Sol and I were talking about it earlier, and he and I are on the same page as far as natural selection in regards to immunity within the human race and modern medicine).  But how could an eye be created by random mutation?  (The Behe example, that will undoubtedly get some of you very angry.)

You see, in order for an eye to work, you have to have the eye-- the cornia, a nerve to process it with, and if you have a nerve you already have to have the brain... NONE of it will work until ALL of these components (and more) are fulfilled.  And this all has to happen by random mutation.  The concept of survival of the fittest is a problem in developing an eye too, because all of these traits and mutations that are neccessary in the process of creating an eye have to be desireable and make the organism the "fittest"... this has to happen before we even have a functioning eye.  See the problem?

That doesn't make creationism/Christianity any more plausible. I go by what I said earlier (that evolution is the best we've got), but I also hink that there are many flaws in the current theory.

[Dascu]

Dascu

Re: Evolution

About that eye example,
I haven't studied or researched it myself, but how about that eye evolved from a more basic version? The earliest creatures didn't have eyes as we do. I would assume that there was a series of similar organs, eventually forming the eye as we have it. Insects have eyes that are different or less developped than ours. Other creatures have eyes that work a lot better and can see things more sharply (some types of birds).

There's many complex structures and organs within the human or animal body. They're part of a long chain of developments. Who knows, within ages from now, there could be a creature with a far more developped eye. Then if he would ask himself how this eye was developped, it could be that it evolved from ours, which in turn evolved from more primitive versions.

[Swoftu]

Swoftu

Re: Evolution

You see, in order for an eye to work, you have to have the eye-- the cornia, a nerve to process it with, and if you have a nerve you already have to have the brain... NONE of it will work until ALL of these components (and more) are fulfilled.  And this all has to happen by random mutation.  The concept of survival of the fittest is a problem in developing an eye too, because all of these traits and mutations that are neccessary in the process of creating an eye have to be desireable and make the organism the "fittest"... this has to happen before we even have a functioning eye.  See the problem?

Quit plagarizing your arguments. I've seen this one at least 3 times before. <_<

And like people said, there were much more simple versions of the eye. (if you want an example of a kind of mechanism that would work for early life, try light sensitive cells.)

[Behemoth5]

Behemoth5

Re: Evolution

Why do people keep making obscure references to me? >_>

jk... I know Behe is the biochemist/intelligent design guy. It's always nice when your online nickname mirrors the surname of a globally famous advocate of Intelligent Design.

Behe's Kirby Factory

I ♥ Sol

• 

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Evolution

Okay, did all the different species on Earth just pop out of thin air? You can't prove the evolution theory completely, but there's absolutely no proof for the creationism theory (other than the bible which doesn't count)

Oh come on... if you don't want to debate, don't post in the topic.  I don't give a crap about creationism (there's a creationism theory?  a single one? O_o), this is about evolution.  Besides, there are more ideas besides evolution and intelligent design.

No, I do not. You're applying the typical religious argument why evolution must be a scam.

There's nothing religious about the argument.

Evolution of a species or even a specific organ doesn't happen over night. Why do you think the human race took so long to develop and wasn't spawned the same day as the Earth was created. It takes lots of time. And when I say "lots", I mean millions of years. If you see what scientists think to have been the first species to walk the face of the earth, then you can see I'm indeed right; these creatures indeed had no eyes.

See... you're using something that sounds more like faith than an argument.  "It's possible!"  Certainly it's possible, but improbable!  I'd love to see an eye created in millions of years.  The mathematical probability... it's impossible to calculate, because of the idea of "survival of the fittest", but come on!  Do you think an eye could be created in millions of years?  Like... really?

That doesn't make creationism/Christianity any more plausible. I go by what I said earlier (that evolution is the best we've got), but I also hink that there are many flaws in the current theory.

There are other theories that have less flaws that aren't intelligent design or evolution.  I don't believe them either, because they of course, still have flaws (and are less accepted than evolution).  Most of them involve life that begun someplace else besides earth, whereas the idea of evolution says that life started on this earth... something extremely inprobable (which there are actually mathematics for).

About that eye example,
I haven't studied or researched it myself, but how about that eye evolved from a more basic version? The earliest creatures didn't have eyes as we do. I would assume that there was a series of similar organs, eventually forming the eye as we have it. Insects have eyes that are different or less developped than ours. Other creatures have eyes that work a lot better and can see things more sharply (some types of birds).

Well yes.  I'm not saying that the human eye came out of nowhere.  I completely agree that it'd have to evolve from a more basic form of an eye.  But it would still involve a cornia, complex nervous system and a brain to process it with.

Quit plagarizing your arguments. I've seen this one at least 3 times before. <_<

I cited where I got my argument from, and I even put it in my own words.

And like people said, there were much more simple versions of the eye. (if you want an example of a kind of mechanism that would work for early life, try light sensitive cells.)

But before you could have that light sensative cell, you'd still need a nervous system (so it could be "light sensative") and a brain to process that information with (otherwise it would be useless, making the "survival of the fittest" concept a problem).

And where did the light sensative cells come from?

Why do people keep making obscure references to me? >_>

LOL!  That's irony.

[Behemoth5]

Behemoth5

Re: Evolution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Behe's Kirby Factory

I ♥ Sol

• 

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Evolution

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

It didn't prove anything, it just said "it's possible!"

For those of you who don't want to click on the link, here's the entire article:

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

[EDIT]

Not to mention, they pretty much ignore the neccessary requirements of a living organism to have their eye WORK.  Speaking of which, how would a nervous system get created through natural selection and small random mutations?  How would it connect with the eye? O_o

(I'm actually really curious on that one, and would love it if anyone had any information... I'm off to google in the meantime.)

[Dascu]

Dascu

Re: Evolution

A light-sensitive cell does not need a brain to work. Just a few synapses. If you break down every organ and body structure into little bits, then bring them back to more basic forms, it all becomes a lot more probable. It is true that certain elements do seem difficult to have happened "by chance". This is perhaps a spot where religion could fit in a bit into the evolution theory.

That, or aliens.

Certain structures like the eye might have evolved together with a nervous system though.

[Behemoth5]

Behemoth5

Re: Evolution

http://www.stevenharris.com/theory/085.htm

And also:

"Seeing is one of the most pleasing senses of the nervous system. This cherished action primarily conducted by the lens, which magnifies a seen image, vitreous disc, which bends and rotates an image against he retina, which translates the image and light by a set of cells. The retina is at the back of the eye ball where rods and cones structures along with other cells and tissues covert the image into nerve impulses which are transmitted along the optic nerve to the brain where it is kept for memory." (http://library.thinkquest.org/2935/Natures_Best/Nat_Best_Low_Level/Nervous_page.L.html)



I don't actually plan on reading that link, it's like 80 pages long. I'm just a link !@#$%.

I'm fairly certain the nervous system would have existed before the implementation of the eye. The brain is needed to process the information sent to it from the eye, but photosensitive cells do not need a brain to function, see plants and how they retract/extend their leaves/branches based on light exposure.

Behe's Kirby Factory

I ♥ Sol

• 

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Evolution

A light-sensitive cell does not need a brain to work.

How would it work?

Seeing is one of the most pleasing senses of the nervous system. This cherished action primarily conducted by the lens, which magnifies a seen image, vitreous disc, which bends and rotates an image against he retina, which translates the image and light by a set of cells. The retina is at the back of the eye ball where rods and cones structures along with other cells and tissues covert the image into nerve impulses which are transmitted along the optic nerve to the brain where it is kept for memory.

I have to ask what that has to do with evolution...?