ForumsWEPREvolution

175 33989
aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,418 posts
835

Evolution!

People LOVE to "debate" evolution. But that's silly, and doesn't really solve anything. If you are in a debate about whether or not evolution is a valid theory, you are either debating someone who has little to no idea what what evolution is, or ARE the person who has little to no idea what evolution is. That doesn't sound like very much fun, so let's not do that, okay?

Instead, this thread will be about topics in evolution, because it is much more entertaining to talk about specific cases and ideas than one big overarching theory. The topics will be chosen by whoever has the best topic, with all "lesser" topics being ignored and forgotten.

Now, I'll start us off with what actually made me want to start this thread: randomness. I was reading Mage's post at the bottom of this thread, and immediately thought about genetic drift.

Here is a classic example of genetic drift in a fruit fly population:

Basically, genetic drift states that random sampling has a lot to do with the evolution of small populations. Think about it: say you have a population of four individuals, two males and two females. One female homozygous allele for blue fur, the others all have a homozygous allele for red fur. Mating between blue and red fur produces a heterzygous purple fur creature. We would therefore expect the next generation to have some purple and red individuals, and the one after that to have all three colors represented. Basic Mendelian stuff.

Now, it gets interesting. Lightening strikes the blue female. She's dead, and will never reproduce. Now, all individuals in this population will be forevermore purely red. Note that this is regardless of the fitness of these genes. Blue fur might have been much more beneficial (perhaps these creatures lived in blue grass, and it provided camouflage), due entirely to random events (as opposed to evolutionary pressures) it is RED fur that becomes fixed in the population.

Going back to and contradicting Mage's comment from before, due to genetic drift, having the same selective factors won't guarantee a particular evolutionary outcome, due to simple random events.

So.... Discuss?

  • 175 Replies
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,936 posts
21,215

Most of the science was started and advanced by the church, as well as music, art, and much mire.

Only half true. But no matter. Most prominent examle is certainly Mendel, Augustinian friar, whom we have to thank for the discovery of the genetic mechanics of inheritance, and as such, one of the bases of evolution.

Of course, humanity has used the principles of evolution since thousands of years. Breeding dogs, cattles, differen grain sorts, is all based on evolution.
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

There is no way for them to find out how old anything is exactly. Impossible. At least my theories revolve around a world inhabited my men, not dinosaurs. Also, here [http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-impact-of-christianity]

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,936 posts
21,215

There is no way for them to find out how old anything is exactly. Impossible.

Oh yes? Then what about carbon dating? Biostratigraphy? Molecular clock? We can literally read the time from geological layers:
http://www.pro-bergbau.de/bilder/rwthaachen/schichtenwand1.jpg
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

Those are not reliable. "Oh, this rock is 7000000 years old! I can tell because it the carbon in it is old. Give me an award, I'm smart!"

KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

It's not like they were sitting there for 7000000 years, watching them build up.

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,936 posts
21,215

Those are not reliable. "Oh, this rock is 7000000 years old! I can tell because it the carbon in it is old. Give me an award, I'm smart!"

We don't make it up, moron. It's all following the strict laws of chemistry.

It's not like they were sitting there for 7000000 years, watching them build up.

It's not like you've witnessed anything that happened in biblical tiems.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

Those are not reliable.


Because a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself from individual chapter to chapter is so reliable.

Why do you insist on 7 billion by the way? What do you think that number is, exactly?

There is no way for them to find out how old anything is exactly. Impossible.


To within a few thousand years there is.

Have you ever flown on an airplane? HUMANS CAN'T FLY! Oh wait, we know how aerodynamics work, so we actually can. Do you know how aerodynamics work? No? Well, planes still fly.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

I am open to learning if there's obvious proof.


The links provided in that link to the blog post I did that can also be found on my profile provides such &quotroof".

It's a theory, not a fact,


It's both fact and theory. But let's start with giving you a basic understanding of what these terms mean, since you don't seem to know what your talking about .

A theory isn't something one person just makes up. It requires multiple people to verify it with objective verifiable evidence. (i.e. proof) If a theory didn't have &quotroof, it wouldn't be a theory in the scientific sense in the first place.

Theory; A scientific explanation of related observations or events based on hypotheses and verified multiple times by different independent researchers.

There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.
-The germ theory of desease: that some illnesses are caused by microscopic organisms.
-The heliocentric solar system: that the planets in our solar system orbit around the sun.
-The atomic theory of matter: that all matter is made up of atoms.
These are often not thought of as theories but as facts, and they are. But they also fit the definition of a theory as they offer explaination.

Fact; An objective, verifiable observation. They can be, and has been, verified many times.

so I'm not going to believe it unless you can show me complete proof.


That's a good attitude to take, I wish you would take the same approach with other things, but I digress. However the problem is we have presented you with evidence already and you seem to have ignored it.

Some scientist could've made up some random crap so people would call him a freakin genius.


Yes, and when other scientists come along and try to rip it to shreds or put it to use what those scientists just made up would fall apart like a house of cards. That's one of the nice things about science, it has a tendency to naturally weed out the false stuff over time if any get's in there.

Most of the science was started and advanced by the church, as well as music, art, and much mire.


Mean like how when someone proposed something like the Earth is round or we revolve around the sun religion readily accepted it based on the evidence and didn't treat those people as heretics?

The problem is religion uses a backwards method to that of science. As illustrated here.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/atheistjokes/science-vs-religion1.png
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Those are not reliable. "Oh, this rock is 7000000 years old! I can tell because it the carbon in it is old. Give me an award, I'm smart!"


Actually it is reliable. First off we don't use carbon dating to date the age of rock, that is used for other more recent things. We use other forms of radiometric dating for that. We can also use different and completely independent forms of such dating and cross reference them to determine if they are in agreement or not. That is how we can determine the reliability of these methods.
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

Your picture showed that scientists took facts, and guessed what they meant. Catholics have the meaning, and believe them because it's the word of God himself. And Kasic, I just made up the ridiculous number of 7000000 because its basically what they say. I'm emphasizing the stupidity. Kasic, although you are the biggest troll, you are the only one with solid points on this GAMING website.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

Your picture showed that scientists took facts, and guessed what they meant.


Took the facts, proposed a hypothesis to explain them, tested their claims, had others test their claims, revised any inconsistencies, restested their claims, had others test those new claims, until everything added up.

Catholics have the meaning, and believe them because it's the word of God himself.


Except you don't have the conclusion. You have the conclusion, according to itself. Literally anyone can say something, and then say that what they just said is right.

You have no proof that the bible is the word of God.
You have no proof that the Islam isn't true instead.
You have no proof that a non-abrahamic religion isn't true instead.
You have no proof about anything, other than a self-affirming book.

And Kasic, I just made up the ridiculous number of 7000000 because its basically what they say


The numbers we find for ages are not random. They're based on logic and empirical evidence. We find testing various things to be consistent.

I'm emphasizing the stupidity


http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/break-the-cycle.jpg

What you are doing is this.

Kasic, although you are the biggest troll


I'm not trolling.
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,936 posts
21,215

I'm emphasizing the stupidity.

You're emphasizing your absolute and total lack of any spark of intellect and common sense. Have you even considered looking at the evidence we linked you? Have you ever seriously considered that what you claim science to be, is not what it is? Have you... well no, obviously you haven't. Because you are uncapable of the least bit of critical thinking. As such, you can't even start to comprehend how one can assess things as the age of a geological layer simply by data collection and use of empirical methods based on natural laws. We are looking at the world as it IS. You are looking at a dusty old book portraying a world like you wish it was.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

We don't make it up, moron. It's all following the strict laws of chemistry.


You know **** gets real when HahiHa throws in an insult. I think this is the first time I've seen you make a personal dig

you are the only one with solid points on this GAMING website.


Except...you aren't in the Gaming part of the site. You are in the WEPR section of the Forums
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Your picture showed that scientists took facts, and guessed what they meant.


I'm curious did you simply not read what I stated about scientists verifying claims? They test those guesses (which for any reliable "guess" would in turn have to be based on reason.) to make sure that they have actually work in the real world in the way claimed.

Catholics have the meaning, and believe them because it's the word of God himself.


You actually don't know that it is the word of God himself. This is simply a belief based on no proof (which is the very definition of faith might I add.) You are believing something that not only is not tested, it in some cases may be untestable and often regarded as wrong to even try. Yet you apply a double standard and require complete proof of what we are telling you and worse seem to ignore that &quotroof" when presented to you.

If you are not open to learning and don't even seem like you're willing to bother reading what we are saying to you, what reason do we have to continue speaking with you?
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

danm i've been in the hospital for a week and exactly this week, 1 of those guys pop up. and i wasn't able to join in the fun. =(

Showing 76-90 of 175