Evolutionism or creationism - Armor Games Community

1486	260661

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted December 20, '09 11:52pm UTC

But isn't evolution supposed to happen painstakingly slow? Like it takes hundreds of thousands of years for even one new species to be created. How can just one period be faster all of a sudden, then slow down again? Also, very few, if any, transitional fossils have been found for Cambrian species, making it seem as if this huge variety of species came from nowhere. Transitional fossils is some of the best proof for evolution, if you take those out, it becomes much less believable. :/

We've actually recently observed bacteria evolving from one species to another. They shifted from consuming glucose to consuming citrate (which is not something e.coli does, ever) in very controlled circumstances - the proffessor runnin gthe experiment has frozen ''backups'' of the bacteria back through the last 20 years, and they're working on figuring out exactly where, when and how this literally species shifting change happened.

In essence we have a frozen timeline of a strain of bacteria evolving into a new species.

Yes, but microevolution still isn't macroevolution, and micro does happen much quicker, and it's usually not as radical as macro. Example, reptiles gaining feathers and wings (macro) or the finches in the Galapagos changing beak size (micro).

That macro enough for you? (Important to note that in the context of the bacteria world, shifting what they consume would be like human beings suddenly becoming able to breathe underwater - it's that major a change).

[quote]But isn't evolution supposed to happen painstakingly slow? Like it takes hundreds of thousands of years for even one new species to be created. How can just one period be faster all of a sudden, then slow down again? Also, very few, if any, transitional fossils have been found for Cambrian species, making it seem as if this huge variety of species came from nowhere. Transitional fossils is some of the best proof for evolution, if you take those out, it becomes much less believable. :/[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe've actually recently observed bacteria evolving [url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html]from one species to another.[/url] They shifted from consuming glucose to consuming citrate (which is not something e.coli does, ever) in very controlled circumstances - the proffessor runnin gthe experiment has frozen ''backups'' of the bacteria back through the last 20 years, and they're working on figuring out exactly where, when and how this literally species shifting change happened. \r\n\r\nIn essence we have a frozen timeline of a strain of bacteria evolving into a new species.\r\n\r\n[quote]    Yes, but microevolution still isn't macroevolution, and micro does happen much quicker, and it's usually not as radical as macro. Example, reptiles gaining feathers and wings (macro) or the finches in the Galapagos changing beak size (micro).[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat macro enough for you? (Important to note that in the context of the bacteria world, shifting what they consume would be like human beings suddenly becoming able to breathe underwater - it's that major a change).

offline

Pau11Wa11

527 posts

Nomad

Posted December 21, '09 7:56pm UTC

i am a christian and i belief in creationism

offline

German3945

996 posts

Nomad

Posted December 21, '09 9:00pm UTC

But isn't evolution supposed to happen painstakingly slow? Like it takes hundreds of thousands of years for even one new species to be created. How can just one period be faster all of a sudden, then slow down again? Also, very few, if any, transitional fossils have been found for Cambrian species, making it seem as if this huge variety of species came from nowhere. Transitional fossils is some of the best proof for evolution, if you take those out, it becomes much less believable. :/

It's so hard to find fossils for the Cambrian period for two large reasons: (1) So deep under the soil we haven't excavated them yet, or they're in spot which we have no idea where they are (we don't know exactly where every land mass was back then nor their status, Pennsylvania was somewhere around the Equator and mostly underwater!) and (2) 95% of the time we find fossils of the time, they've been so damaged by natural causes and our own abusiveness that they crumble at the touch that they're as useful as sand.

[quote]But isn't evolution supposed to happen painstakingly slow? Like it takes hundreds of thousands of years for even one new species to be created. How can just one period be faster all of a sudden, then slow down again? Also, very few, if any, transitional fossils have been found for Cambrian species, making it seem as if this huge variety of species came from nowhere. Transitional fossils is some of the best proof for evolution, if you take those out, it becomes much less believable. :/[/quote]\r\nIt's so hard to find fossils for the Cambrian period for two large reasons: (1) So deep under the soil we haven't excavated them yet, or they're in spot which we have no idea where they are (we don't know exactly where every land mass was back then nor their status, Pennsylvania was somewhere around the Equator and mostly underwater!) and (2) 95% of the time we find fossils of the time, they've been so damaged by natural causes and our own abusiveness that they crumble at the touch that they're as useful as sand.

offline

SilentQ

601 posts

Nomad

Posted December 21, '09 9:07pm UTC

-sigh- I've got my work cut out for me, but at least this gives me a reason to procrastinate!

1+1=2 <--microevolution
1+1+1+1+1... etc. etc. =1,000,000 <--macroevolution

They developed large head resulting in a stronger bite force to better chew up plants, a completely new digestive track, and they lost there territorial behavior a trait that if emerged in there original environment would have gotten them killed.

The reason micro and macro are different, is because they aren't necessarily just on different scales. Micro usually deals with already existing traits, while macro is the development of new traits. So it would be more like this:

Micro: 1+1= 2
Macro: 1+(2*2/4)^2 + 1 /3 + 1 = 2

Jaw- micro. Digestive- That is rather large. Hm...can I get a link or something for more info? Territorial- Pretty micro, as it is just behavioral. Do you get your behavior from your genes? Not really. (Not gonna deal with the bacteria cause I'll address it later lol. )

And my argument is more like this:
1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+2=5, 5+x=300. In this case 'x' would be God (though it would actually be 295 in this specific example.)

Over time, the small changes entailed by microevolution will lead to the species being technically different. Hence, macroevolution.

Again, micro is more dealing with existing genes and the like. The only way to create new genetic traits from old ones is by mutations, and usually those are rather bad.

Then we wait. Really, lack of evidence shouldn't drive us to come up with solutions, and our solutions shouldn't have a lack of evidence.

But at the rate we are discovering after frantic searching, we'll most likely NEVER come up with the evidence. So we should be looking for plausible solutions, isn't that what science is all about? :/

...And I'm not even sure what your trying to say German3945. >.>

We've actually recently observed bacteria evolving from one species to another. They shifted from consuming glucose to consuming citrate (which is not something e.coli does, ever) in very controlled circumstances - the proffessor runnin gthe experiment has frozen ''backups'' of the bacteria back through the last 20 years, and they're working on figuring out exactly where, when and how this literally species shifting change happened.

Could be faked, as they were very controlled. For all we know, he could've altered the bacteria himself. And this is showing just how long macroevolution takes to happen, as it takes over 44 THOUSAND generations to get even one major change. For humans, that would be the equivalent of 4,400,000 years, probably longer. For just one significant change at all. And most species have SEVERAL drastic changes. This just makes the Cambrian explosion so much more disproof, because in much less than 40,000 generations, many new species popped up, with a lot of differences. Also, think of the pet dog. They are all classified as the same species, but look at the difference between a chihuahua and a golden retriever!

It's so hard to find fossils for the Cambrian period for two large reasons: (1) So deep under the soil we haven't excavated them yet, or they're in spot which we have no idea where they are (we don't know exactly where every land mass was back then nor their status, Pennsylvania was somewhere around the Equator and mostly underwater!) and (2) 95% of the time we find fossils of the time, they've been so damaged by natural causes and our own abusiveness that they crumble at the touch that they're as useful as sand.

They actually addressed one in the video I watch (still really annoyed I can't give a link or anything. D:&lt. They found a spot right under the Cambrian era which had perfect fossil conditions. It's great, cause all they really found were fossilized sponge cells. Yes, microscopic soft cells. If even actual multicellular organisms couldn't be found when sponge cells COULD, that makes me question their existence greatly. And regarding 2, if that's the case, then why do most evolutionists use fossils as evidence? If they been damaged and changed so much, they should be really inaccurate, and on top of that we're getting a measly 5% of them.

While it may sound like I'm completely anti-evolutionist, I really have no problem with it. I just wanna show you guys that even evolution has it's flaws because it seems like scientists now a days worship it and treat it as a religion, violently attacking even the slightest questioning of it.
God could have easily used evolution as a means for creation, all that's left for me is to ponder upon that and determine if that's what I truly feel, or a direct creation method. :/

-sigh- I've got my work cut out for me, but at least this gives me a reason to procrastinate!\r\n\r\n[quote] 1+1=2 <--microevolution\r\n1+1+1+1+1... etc. etc. =1,000,000 <--macroevolution\r\n\r\nThey developed large head resulting in a stronger bite force to better chew up plants, a completely new digestive track, and they lost there territorial behavior a trait that if emerged in there original environment would have gotten them killed.  [/quote]\r\n\r\nThe reason micro and macro are different, is because they aren't necessarily just on different scales. Micro usually deals with already existing traits, while macro is the development of new traits. So it would be more like this:\r\n\r\nMicro: 1+1= 2\r\nMacro: 1+(2*2/4)^2 + 1 /3 + 1 = 2\r\n\r\nJaw- micro. Digestive- That is rather large. Hm...can I get a link or something for more info? Territorial- Pretty micro, as it is just behavioral. Do you get your behavior from your genes? Not really. (Not gonna deal with the bacteria cause I'll address it later lol. )\r\n\r\nAnd my argument is more like this:\r\n1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+2=5, 5+x=300. In this case 'x' would be God (though it would actually be 295 in this specific example.)\r\n\r\n[quote] Over time, the small changes entailed by microevolution will lead to the species being technically different.  Hence, macroevolution. [/quote]\r\n\r\nAgain, micro is more dealing with existing genes and the like. The only way to create new genetic traits from old ones is by mutations, and usually those are rather bad.\r\n\r\n[quote] Then we wait.  Really, lack of evidence shouldn't drive us to come up with solutions, and our solutions shouldn't have a lack of evidence. [/quote]\r\n\r\nBut at the rate we are discovering after frantic searching, we'll most likely NEVER come up with the evidence. So we should be looking for plausible solutions, isn't that what science is all about? :/\r\n\r\n...And I'm not even sure what your trying to say German3945. >.>\r\n\r\n[quote] We've actually recently observed bacteria evolving from one species to another. They shifted from consuming glucose to consuming citrate (which is not something e.coli does, ever) in very controlled circumstances - the proffessor runnin gthe experiment has frozen ''backups'' of the bacteria back through the last 20 years, and they're working on figuring out exactly where, when and how this literally species shifting change happened. [/quote]\r\n\r\nCould be faked, as they were very controlled. For all we know, he could've altered the bacteria himself. And this is showing just how long macroevolution takes to happen, as it takes over 44 THOUSAND generations to get even one major change. For humans, that would be the equivalent of 4,400,000 years, probably longer. For just one significant change at all. And most species have SEVERAL drastic changes. This just makes the Cambrian explosion so much more disproof, because in much less than 40,000 generations, many new species popped up, with a lot of differences. Also, think of the pet dog. They are all classified as the same species, but look at the difference between a chihuahua and a golden retriever!\r\n\r\n[quote] It's so hard to find fossils for the Cambrian period for two large reasons: (1) So deep under the soil we haven't excavated them yet, or they're in spot which we have no idea where they are (we don't know exactly where every land mass was back then nor their status, Pennsylvania was somewhere around the Equator and mostly underwater!) and (2) 95% of the time we find fossils of the time, they've been so damaged by natural causes and our own abusiveness that they crumble at the touch that they're as useful as sand. [/quote]\r\n\r\nThey actually addressed one in the video I watch (still really annoyed I can't give a link or anything. D:<). They found a spot right under the Cambrian era which had perfect fossil conditions. It's great, cause all they really found were fossilized sponge cells. Yes, microscopic soft cells. If even actual multicellular organisms couldn't be found when sponge cells COULD, that makes me question their existence greatly. And regarding 2, if that's the case, then why do most evolutionists use fossils as evidence? If they been damaged and changed so much, they should be really inaccurate, and on top of that we're getting a measly 5% of them.\r\n\r\nWhile it may sound like I'm completely anti-evolutionist, I really have no problem with it. I just wanna show you guys that even evolution has it's flaws because it seems like scientists now a days worship it and treat it as a religion, violently attacking even the slightest questioning of it.\r\nGod could have [i]easily[/i] used evolution as a means for creation, all that's left for me is to ponder upon that and determine if that's what I truly feel, or a direct creation method. :/

offline

German3945

996 posts

Nomad

Posted December 21, '09 9:37pm UTC

They actually addressed one in the video I watch (still really annoyed I can't give a link or anything. D:&lt. They found a spot right under the Cambrian era which had perfect fossil conditions. It's great, cause all they really found were fossilized sponge cells. Yes, microscopic soft cells. If even actual multicellular organisms couldn't be found when sponge cells COULD, that makes me question their existence greatly

It depends on the conditions greatly.

Since all plants were underwater at the time and thusfar supported by evidence all animals were underwater at the time, most fossils that could have been produced suffered bad water erosion. While sea levels lowered during Cambrian extinction, the atmosphere was very harsh (ozone 10% that of what it is today) and wore down most rocks and other sediment. link

The previous periods were not as affected by this because they were already covered up by Cambrian period sediment/etc and the sediment from in between the two periods. The intense global climate change also largely effected this. The cause of the intense change also could have attributed.

And regarding 2, if that's the case, then why do most evolutionists use fossils as evidence? If they been damaged and changed so much, they should be really inaccurate, and on top of that we're getting a measly 5% of them.

Fossils of the Cambrian period* not all fossils.

Fossils are used religiously (I mean that in the sense of that they're largely relied upon, not that they're coveted) because they're the only reliable evidence of species of the past and the only thing that can prove existence of past species.

God could have easily used evolution as a means for creation

No. You don't get to say that when you rely so heavily on the Bible and the bible says that all creatures were created within the same six days. 6 billion years is not equivalent to 6 days simply because you're trying to personally validate your god.

[quote]They actually addressed one in the video I watch (still really annoyed I can't give a link or anything. D:<). They found a spot right under the Cambrian era which had perfect fossil conditions. It's great, cause all they really found were fossilized sponge cells. Yes, microscopic soft cells. If even actual multicellular organisms couldn't be found when sponge cells COULD, that makes me question their existence greatly[/quote]\r\nIt depends on the conditions greatly.\r\n\r\nSince all plants were underwater at the time and thusfar supported by evidence all animals were underwater at the time, most fossils that could have been produced suffered bad water erosion.  While sea levels lowered during Cambrian extinction, the atmosphere was very harsh (ozone 10% that of what it is today) and wore down most rocks and other sediment. [url=http://www.enotes.com/earth-science/cambrian-period]link[/url]\r\n\r\nThe previous periods were not as affected by this because they were already covered up by Cambrian period sediment/etc and the sediment from in between the two periods.  The intense global climate change also largely effected this.  The cause of the intense change also could have attributed.\r\n[quote]And regarding 2, if that's the case, then why do most evolutionists use fossils as evidence? If they been damaged and changed so much, they should be really inaccurate, and on top of that we're getting a measly 5% of them.[/quote]\r\nFossils of the Cambrian period* not all fossils.\r\n\r\nFossils are used religiously (I mean that in the sense of that they're largely relied upon, not that they're coveted) because they're the only reliable evidence of species of the past and the only thing that can prove existence of past species.\r\n[quote]God could have easily used evolution as a means for creation[/quote]\r\nNo. You don't get to say that when you rely so heavily on the Bible and the bible says that all creatures were created within the same six days.  6 billion years is not equivalent to 6 days simply because you're trying to personally validate your god.

offline

Nurvana

2,520 posts

Farmer

Posted December 21, '09 9:40pm UTC

No. You don't get to say that when you rely so heavily on the Bible and the bible says that all creatures were created within the same six days. 6 billion years is not equivalent to 6 days simply because you're trying to personally validate your god.

What does 6 and 6 billion have in common? Sorta like scientific notation! The Vatican has announced that certain parts of the bible are open to figuration, and to an extent interpretable.

offline

SilentQ

601 posts

Nomad

Posted December 21, '09 9:52pm UTC

No. You don't get to say that when you rely so heavily on the Bible and the bible says that all creatures were created within the same six days. 6 billion years is not equivalent to 6 days simply because you're trying to personally validate your god.

Where on AG at all have you ever seen me say "I rely on the Bible for everything." I'll answer that for you- nowhere. In fact, I've done the opposite. I've said that I don't like to rely on the Bible, as it is a work of MAN, not God directly, thus information is lost in the middleman and translation. Also, I've also said that days has been transferred to millenia in the Bible as well, leaving that 6 days a time to be varied. All we know is that it is in an increment of 6, whether that be minutes, hours, days, months, years, decades, centuries, millenia, or even billions.

Fossils are used religiously because they're the only reliable evidence of species of the past and the only thing that can prove existence of past species.

Again, just furthering the degree of how badly the Cambrian era is disproof. Since they are the ONLY reliable evidence, and we're only getting 5% out of the Cambrian era, that must mean there were many, many, MANY more than thought. Thus making the evolution go even faster for just the Cambrian era, then slowing down greatly again.

Since all plants were underwater at the time and thusfar supported by evidence all animals were underwater at the time, most fossils that could have been produced suffered bad water erosion. While sea levels lowered during Cambrian extinction, the atmosphere was very harsh (ozone 10% that of what it is today) and wore down most rocks and other sediment. link

The previous periods were not as affected by this because they were already covered up by Cambrian period sediment/etc and the sediment from in between the two periods. The intense global climate change also largely effected this. The cause of the intense change also could have attributed.

Not sure if I'm understanding you right, but are you trying to say that it's perfectly feasible cause the Cambrian era was underwater and the atmosphere wasn't that great?

[quote] No. You don't get to say that when you rely so heavily on the Bible and the bible says that all creatures were created within the same six days.  6 billion years is not equivalent to 6 days simply because you're trying to personally validate your god. [/quote]\r\n\r\nWhere on AG at all have you ever seen me say "I rely on the Bible for everything." I'll answer that for you- nowhere. In fact, I've done the opposite. I've said that I don't like to rely on the Bible, as it is a work of MAN, not God directly, thus information is lost in the middleman and translation. Also, I've also said that days has been transferred to millenia in the Bible as well, leaving that 6 days a time to be varied. All we know is that it is in an increment of 6, whether that be minutes, hours, days, months, years, decades, centuries, millenia, or even billions. \r\n\r\n[quote] Fossils are used religiously because they're the only reliable evidence of species of the past and the only thing that can prove existence of past species. [/quote]\r\n\r\nAgain, just furthering the degree of how badly the Cambrian era is disproof. Since they are the ONLY reliable evidence, and we're only getting 5% out of the Cambrian era, that must mean there were many, many, MANY more than thought. Thus making the evolution go even faster for just the Cambrian era, then slowing down greatly again.\r\n\r\n[quote] Since all plants were underwater at the time and thusfar supported by evidence all animals were underwater at the time, most fossils that could have been produced suffered bad water erosion.  While sea levels lowered during Cambrian extinction, the atmosphere was very harsh (ozone 10% that of what it is today) and wore down most rocks and other sediment. link\r\n\r\nThe previous periods were not as affected by this because they were already covered up by Cambrian period sediment/etc and the sediment from in between the two periods.  The intense global climate change also largely effected this.  The cause of the intense change also could have attributed.  [/quote]\r\n\r\nNot sure if I'm understanding you right, but are you trying to say that it's perfectly feasible cause the Cambrian era was underwater and the atmosphere wasn't that great?

offline

thisisnotanalt

9,821 posts

Farmer

Posted December 21, '09 10:05pm UTC

The reason micro and macro are different, is because they aren't necessarily just on different scales. Micro usually deals with already existing traits, while macro is the development of new traits. So it would be more like this:

Wikipedia contradicts you.

"Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process."

Extended microevolution builds up to show macroevolutionary changes over a long period of time. Macroevolution is microevolution over a long period of time. So . . . a good deal of your entire argument is now factually incorrect.

But at the rate we are discovering after frantic searching, we'll most likely NEVER come up with the evidence. So we should be looking for plausible solutions, isn't that what science is all about? :/

Sorry if this gives you the impression that I'm atheist because I'm not . . . but how is a magic man that can create things out of thin air a plausible solution? It isn't. It's an implausible solution molded out of the parameters of the problem. We need to find evidence to say what really happened, not just think up something that could fit.

[quote]The reason micro and macro are different, is because they aren't necessarily just on different scales. Micro usually deals with already existing traits, while macro is the development of new traits. So it would be more like this:[/quote]\r\n\r\nWikipedia contradicts you.  \r\n\r\n"[i]Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, [b]which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution)[/b]. The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process.[/i]"\r\n\r\n\r\nExtended microevolution builds up to show macroevolutionary changes over a long period of time.  Macroevolution is microevolution over a long period of time.  So . . . a[b] good deal of your entire argument is now factually incorrect.[/b]\r\n\r\n[quote]But at the rate we are discovering after frantic searching, we'll most likely NEVER come up with the evidence. So we should be looking for plausible solutions, isn't that what science is all about? :/[/quote]\r\n\r\nSorry if this gives you the impression that I'm atheist because I'm not . . . but how is a magic man that can create things out of thin air a plausible solution?  It isn't. It's an implausible solution molded out of the parameters of the problem.  We need to find evidence to say what really happened, not just think up something that could fit.

offline

SilentQ

601 posts

Nomad

Posted December 21, '09 10:16pm UTC

Hm...Don't know if I trust wikipedia all that much, but alright. If that's the case, then why are most cases of micro-evolution having to do with already existing genes- aka finch beak size, and wolf hair color, just to name a few. Also, gene mutations could also be considered already existing genes, as they are just genes, but screwed up. The chances of this creating a new, helpful trait are very low. Low enough that currently no human gene mutations are helpful, and we've been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and there's almost 7 billion of us currently, not even counting deaths. And the keyword there is LARGE-SCALE. Microevolution is small scale, dealing with one trait at a time. Macro usually deals with 8 or 9, so this just furthers how long it would take for macroevolution to occur from large frequencies of microevolution, furthering the disproof of the Cambrian era once again. Looks like this Cambrian explosion is rather hazardous for evolution, eh?

But if there's never going to BE any evidence, isn't is our job to come up with a plausible solution that fits the mold? Also, God is completely plausible. Just think of the vastness of the universe. Using the theory of evolution, there's bound to be some super-evolved organism that can greatly effect everything around it.

I would love to continue this debate, but I really must be going to bed now, and probably won't be on for another 14 hours (schoooooool. ugh. at least it's the last day until christmas break >.&gt

Hm...Don't know if I trust wikipedia all that much, but alright. If that's the case, then why are most cases of micro-evolution having to do with already existing genes- aka finch beak size, and wolf hair color, just to name a few. Also, gene mutations could also be considered already existing genes, as they are just genes, but screwed up. The chances of this creating a new, [i]helpful[/i] trait are very low. Low enough that currently no human gene mutations are helpful, and we've been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and there's almost 7 billion of us currently, not even counting deaths. And the keyword there is LARGE-SCALE. Microevolution is small scale, dealing with one trait at a time. Macro usually deals with 8 or 9, so this just furthers how long it would take for macroevolution to occur from large frequencies of microevolution, furthering the disproof of the Cambrian era once again. Looks like this Cambrian explosion is rather hazardous for evolution, eh?\r\n\r\nBut if there's never going to BE any evidence, isn't is our job to come up with a plausible solution that fits the mold? Also, God is completely plausible. Just think of the vastness of the universe. Using the theory of evolution, there's bound to be some super-evolved organism that can greatly effect everything around it.\r\n\r\nI would love to continue this debate, but I really must be going to bed now, and probably won't be on for another 14 hours (schoooooool. ugh. at least it's the last day until christmas break >.>)

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted December 21, '09 11:18pm UTC

Jaw- micro. Digestive- That is rather large. Hm...can I get a link or something for more info? Territorial- Pretty micro, as it is just behavioral. Do you get your behavior from your genes? Not really. (Not gonna deal with the bacteria cause I'll address it later lol. )

Here you go.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2.html

This is where I first heard about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY

A rebuttal to a creationist about these lizards mentioned in the above video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI1ZINSpbmQ

Do you get your behavior from your genes? Not really.

To an extent yes you do. This is specially true for other species like lizards. Losing territorial behavior in this case would be like a cat losing it's instinct to stalk small animals.

Again, micro is more dealing with existing genes and the like. The only way to create new genetic traits from old ones is by mutations, and usually those are rather bad.

Flat out wrong. Most mutations have no effect. The bad ones usually don't survive to carry it on to the next generation and the good ones usually do survive to carry them on to the next generation. I believe this is referred to as natural selection.

I would like to know where your getting your definition of micro and macro evolution?

What does 6 and 6 billion have in common? Sorta like scientific notation! The Vatican has announced that certain parts of the bible are open to figuration, and to an extent interpretable.

That just makes the Bible even less reliable.

But if there's never going to BE any evidence, isn't is our job to come up with a plausible solution that fits the mold? Also, God is completely plausible. Just think of the vastness of the universe. Using the theory of evolution, there's bound to be some super-evolved organism that can greatly effect everything around it.

God (something we have no evidence even exists) created the species in the Cambrian era resulting in the Cambrian explosion.

The Cambrian explosion was a result of environmental changes (we have evidence for), a major evolutionary step (we have evidence for) resulting in a number of new genetic traits developing in a relatively short period of time. (we have evidence can happen)

So which is more plausible?

[quote]Jaw- micro. Digestive- That is rather large. Hm...can I get a link or something for more info? Territorial- Pretty micro, as it is just behavioral. Do you get your behavior from your genes? Not really. (Not gonna deal with the bacteria cause I'll address it later lol. )[/quote]\r\n\r\nHere you go.\r\n\r\n[url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm[/url]\r\n\r\n[url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2.html]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2.html[/url]\r\n\r\nThis is where I first heard about it.\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY[/url]\r\n\r\nA rebuttal to a creationist about these lizards mentioned in the above video.\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI1ZINSpbmQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI1ZINSpbmQ[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]Do you get your behavior from your genes? Not really.[/quote]\r\n\r\nTo an extent yes you do. This is specially true for other species like lizards. Losing territorial behavior in this case would be like a cat losing it's instinct to stalk small animals.\r\n\r\n[quote]Again, micro is more dealing with existing genes and the like. The only way to create new genetic traits from old ones is by mutations, and usually those are rather bad.[/quote]\r\n\r\nFlat out wrong. Most mutations have no effect. The bad ones usually don't survive to carry it on to the next generation and the good ones usually do survive to carry them on to the next generation. I believe this is referred to as natural selection.\r\n\r\nI would like to know where your getting your definition of micro and macro evolution?\r\n\r\n[quote]What does 6 and 6 billion have in common? Sorta like scientific notation! The Vatican has announced that certain parts of the bible are open to figuration, and to an extent interpretable.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat just makes the Bible even less reliable.\r\n\r\n[quote]But if there's never going to BE any evidence, isn't is our job to come up with a plausible solution that fits the mold? Also, God is completely plausible. Just think of the vastness of the universe. Using the theory of evolution, there's bound to be some super-evolved organism that can greatly effect everything around it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nGod (something we have no evidence even exists) created the species in the Cambrian era resulting in the Cambrian explosion.\r\n\r\nThe Cambrian explosion was a result of environmental changes (we have evidence for), a major evolutionary step (we have evidence for) resulting in a number of new genetic traits developing in a relatively short period of time. (we have evidence can happen)\r\n\r\nSo which is more plausible?

offline

sonicheroes95

13,701 posts

Peasant

Posted December 22, '09 12:32am UTC

neither if you ask me.

God (something we have no evidence even exists) created the species in the Cambrian era resulting in the Cambrian explosion.
The Cambrian explosion was a result of environmental changes (we have evidence for), a major evolutionary step (we have evidence for) resulting in a number of new genetic traits developing in a relatively short period of time. (we have evidence can happen)

i want solid proof, not evidence.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted December 22, '09 12:56am UTC

i want solid proof, not evidence.

What would you except as proof?

Also do you have your own ideas of what happened?

offline

sonicheroes95

13,701 posts

Peasant

Posted December 22, '09 1:06am UTC

no, but why should i care about the past in the 1st place?

offline

Nurvana

2,520 posts

Farmer

Posted December 22, '09 1:09am UTC

What would you except as proof?

Just in case Devoidless doesn't see this

There is no proof either way. Even if either one side proved their theory was correct, The other side wouldn't believe them, continuing to believe their own ideas.

offline

thisisnotanalt

9,821 posts

Farmer

Posted December 22, '09 1:25am UTC

Hm...Don't know if I trust wikipedia all that much, but alright. If that's the case, then why are most cases of micro-evolution having to do with already existing genes- aka finch beak size, and wolf hair color, just to name a few. Also, gene mutations could also be considered already existing genes, as they are just genes, but screwed up. The chances of this creating a new, helpful trait are very low. Low enough that currently no human gene mutations are helpful, and we've been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and there's almost 7 billion of us currently, not even counting deaths. And the keyword there is LARGE-SCALE. Microevolution is small scale, dealing with one trait at a time. Macro usually deals with 8 or 9, so this just furthers how long it would take for macroevolution to occur from large frequencies of microevolution, furthering the disproof of the Cambrian era once again. Looks like this Cambrian explosion is rather hazardous for evolution, eh?

Well, wikipedia has more credibility than you. Also, microevolution stuff doesn't deal with existing genes, it modifies the existing genes. Macroevolution is the exact same process as microevolution - before you think another thought on the subject, you need to accept that because the entire paragraph is just saying the same, factually incorrect thing you've said the entire time. You're completely and utterly misinterpreting evolution as a whole. Microevolution is a small step on the evolutionary path, macroevolution is a collection of small steps. Like what wikipedia said, microevolution is simply a reductionist way of looking at the evolutionary process, and macroevolution is a holistic way to look at it. Is it in your head yet??

About the Cambrian Explosion, it isn't harmful for evolution, and it doesn't support theism. It's simply another question we have unanswered, and you can't say it' s evidence for or against evolution when all we know is that it seems like a bunch of phylums developed. Face it, there's not enough evidence on it to make it a valid point against evolution. Here's how a conversation about it should go:

Theist: Lolol, ur evolution iz destroid by the Cambrian Explosion
Evolutionist: Lolol, u mean taht thing we know nothing about beesidez taht itz weerd and lotsa animals popped up tehn
Theist: yeah that lolol
Evolutionist: but it cant be a valid point cuz we know jack about it dude
Theist: IT WAS GAWD LOL
Evolutionist: IT WUZ EVOLUTION LOL
Theist: GIMME PROOF, GG
Evolutionist: NO U, U MADE THE CLAIM TAHT GAWD MADE EVERYTHING
Theist: BUT U MADE THE CLAIM TAHT EVOLUTION DID IT
Evolutionist + Theist: OH DAMMIT NEITHER OF US CAN PROVE IT. LETS TRY AND FIND SOME EVIDENCE

-_-

But if there's never going to BE any evidence, isn't is our job to come up with a plausible solution that fits the mold? Also, God is completely plausible. Just think of the vastness of the universe. Using the theory of evolution, there's bound to be some super-evolved organism that can greatly effect everything around it.

Too bad you have no evidence that there'll never be any evidence.

Also, so? It is quite possible that there's a hyperevolved species out there. But that'd contradict the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran.

[quote]Hm...Don't know if I trust wikipedia all that much, but alright. If that's the case, then why are most cases of micro-evolution having to do with already existing genes- aka finch beak size, and wolf hair color, just to name a few. Also, gene mutations could also be considered already existing genes, as they are just genes, but screwed up. The chances of this creating a new, helpful trait are very low. Low enough that currently no human gene mutations are helpful, and we've been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and there's almost 7 billion of us currently, not even counting deaths. And the keyword there is LARGE-SCALE. Microevolution is small scale, dealing with one trait at a time. Macro usually deals with 8 or 9, so this just furthers how long it would take for macroevolution to occur from large frequencies of microevolution, furthering the disproof of the Cambrian era once again. Looks like this Cambrian explosion is rather hazardous for evolution, eh?[/quote]\r\n\r\nWell, wikipedia has more credibility than you.  Also, microevolution stuff doesn't deal with existing genes, it modifies the existing genes.    Macroevolution is the exact same process as microevolution -  before you think another thought on the subject, you need to accept that because the entire paragraph is just saying the same, factually incorrect thing you've said the entire time.  You're completely and utterly misinterpreting evolution as a whole.  Microevolution is a small step on the evolutionary path, macroevolution is a collection of small steps.  Like what wikipedia said, microevolution is simply a reductionist way of looking at the evolutionary process, and macroevolution is a holistic way to look at it.  Is it in your head yet??\r\n\r\nAbout the Cambrian Explosion, it isn't harmful for evolution, and it doesn't support theism.  It's simply another question we have unanswered, and you can't say it' s evidence for or against evolution when all we know is that it seems like a bunch of phylums developed.  Face it, there's not enough evidence on it to make it a valid point against evolution.  Here's how a conversation about it should go:\r\n\r\nTheist: Lolol, ur evolution iz destroid by the Cambrian Explosion\r\nEvolutionist:  Lolol, u mean taht thing we know nothing about beesidez taht itz weerd and lotsa animals popped up tehn\r\nTheist:  yeah that lolol\r\nEvolutionist: but it cant be a valid point cuz we know jack about it dude\r\nTheist: IT WAS GAWD LOL\r\nEvolutionist: IT WUZ EVOLUTION LOL\r\nTheist: GIMME PROOF, GG\r\nEvolutionist: NO U, U MADE THE CLAIM TAHT GAWD MADE EVERYTHING\r\nTheist: BUT U MADE THE CLAIM TAHT EVOLUTION DID IT\r\nEvolutionist + Theist: OH DAMMIT NEITHER OF US CAN PROVE IT.   LETS TRY AND FIND SOME EVIDENCE\r\n\r\n-_-\r\n\r\n[quote]But if there's never going to BE any evidence, isn't is our job to come up with a plausible solution that fits the mold? Also, God is completely plausible. Just think of the vastness of the universe. Using the theory of evolution, there's bound to be some super-evolved organism that can greatly effect everything around it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nToo bad you have no evidence that there'll never be any evidence.\r\n\r\nAlso, so? It is quite possible that there's a hyperevolved species out there.  But that'd contradict the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism