Created by gwho
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Do You Believe in Evolution?
2132 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Philippines
Offline
Posted 6/13/08 , edited 6/13/08
To:::Bleacloverf

Shiteru. Don't need to explain that to me, I've also read Stephen William Hawkings Articles - and He completely agrees with my view. Your making a point outside of it, this is about revolution you know. And about the atom being circular, that's a standard one, no need to argue about the description (you don't need to emphasize that the erath is an oblate spheroid when you could just say round or spherical.)

And going back to Evolution, even If I take back what I said about the word coincidence(which on some points are not necessary), there are a lot of gaps to fill up in the chain of evolution. An incomplete chain is almost equal to a hoax. Of course I'm not saying evolution is totally false, I'm just stating the fact that it's one half less reliable.
72698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F / Cologne, Germany
Offline
Posted 6/14/08
yes
33940 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / Ocean..ia
Offline
Posted 6/14/08
but unlike Darwin, i am not an aethiest.
11816 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Coventry, England
Offline
Posted 6/14/08
Partly.
Posted 6/16/08
meh this discussion has too many ifs
28856 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Brooklyn, New York
Offline
Posted 6/16/08
No...
1451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / someplace somewhere
Offline
Posted 6/16/08
partly
1583 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Anywhere but here.
Offline
Posted 6/17/08 , edited 6/17/08

nccssmm wrote:

Well, I don't know about believing when Frontier Science Feb 2008 Edition just dismiss the theory as merely a illusionary myth because it has only a "1 over 1 raised to the 88" chnace of happening which exceed the number of atoms in the universe!! Although they don't banish the possibilities of some species mutating in recent times over again, they did dismiss the story of how the universe began with a bowl of organic soup... so that makes a no for my answer. Big Bang is even more believable than this!!


Okay, to start off which, you're not actually talking about the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain the diversity and change in species through the processes of mutation, natural selection, and adaptation. This happens through inherited traits of a population of organisms to the next.

What you're actually doubting is a particular field of science called Abiogenesis. This field of science deals with the origin of life, rather than the processes which life utilises to adapt itself and become more diverse, aka Evolution. Strictly speaking, Evolution occurs when life already exists; the "organic soup" theory that you talk about isn't necessarily a part of Evolution, but rather a question dealing with Abiogenesis. Wiki up Abiogenesis if you must, but there are several leading theories regarding it:

One of the leading theories regarding the matter is the Organic Soup theory - Contrary to the complex operations of one-celled organisms these days, it's theorised that early organisms were in fact strings of acid and protein (also an acid) that bonded together and replicated simply. This process may have been sped up by the existence of deep sea vents, which provided heat, movement, and other chemicals from the deep. Organic soup theory is one of the leading hypothesises in abogenesis.

The other not-so leading theory in the matter is exogenesis - the idea that life could have been catalysed by an external agent, such as alien meteorites, which may or may not make any sense at all.

Of course the last one is Creationist theory, which ignores all scientific study and proposes that an intelligent designer created life. Now I'm not against creationist theory, I'm just not so certain how _scientific_ the theory is. It's just not provable, or replicable in laboratory conditions.

In short, Evolution talks about the process of which life diversifies through mutation, natural selection, and adaptation, while Abiogenesis talks about the creation of life. Interesting, but two completely different scientific fields.
1583 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Anywhere but here.
Offline
Posted 6/17/08 , edited 6/17/08

nccssmm wrote:

I do realize that one. But It's just so immature to believe(with that probability of happening) that we are what we are now. I mean, thus all of those things happened just by coincidence? If so, there are over 1,000,000,000 events and each have a different probabilities of happening but it happened anyway - if evolution where to be proven, you couldn't just say that this all follow a coincidencial rule.

For example, the human eye with it's complexity and completeness. The way your body is arranged, where your head and brain is and where your heart is and how your entire body is interconnected together, do you just believe that it all develop because of a certain coincidence? Well, pardon me but I do not. The feathers of birds - If evolution really exists, why do feathers never evolve?

By the way, the Atmosphere itself when left alone cannot create life - that's a standard you have to know. Life come from somewhere. For years, scientists tried to create life out of an artificial atmosphere but failed. Still, many of those evolutionists (as they call themselves) implied that it's possible.

And the designs of how atoms follow a cirular path, as well as all the cosmo bodies in the universe, how can there be so much balance when things just appeared by coincidence? There should be some outside forces superior to the universe itself to do that!


Now that we're done with abiogenesis (of which, isn't as complex a theory of evolution, because scientists are lacking incredibly huge understandings of how something like that could happen - why don't YOU try to recreate an event that may have occured several billion years ago), I'll go on to coincidence and evolution. Evolution isn't about coincidence - well - in some cases it is.

Note that it's been several billion years since it's been suggested that life as we know it appeared on earth. Note that it takes similarly a long time for evolution to occur. I'm not saying that Evolution is a complete theory - the reason why it's a theory and not a rule is because it's continually being critically examined even by the scientific community - and that's good, because critically examining something usually leads to better understanding of the theory.But I digress.

I've previously discussed that Evolution explains the diversity of living organisms through mutation, adaptation, and natural selection, with each generation passing down hereditary traits that accumulate throughout several thousand years of existence. The reason why you cannot see macroevolution as it occurs is because human recorded history only has been in existence for the last 5000 years or so, and even way back then they didn't describe things scientifically - most records were stories or tales (I mean they had DRAGONS back then... well, could have existed, but we haven't found anything to suggest that).

The extremely basic timeline that Earth has for life:

4 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
3 billion years of photosynthesis,
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
1 billion years of multicellular life,
600 million years of simple animals,
570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans)
550 million years of complex animals
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 million years of land plants,
400 million years of insects and seeds,
360 million years of amphibians,
300 million years of reptiles,
200 million years of mammals,
150 million years of birds,
130 million years of flowers,
65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today.

Humans can't even live for more than 100 years and you're talking about events which occured several billions of years ago. And even then it was an extremely slow and gradual process. It's true what you question: if evolution does really occur, then why have feathers been around for 150 million years? The reason is actually deceptively simple: recall that evolution occurs due to mutation, adaptation, and natural selection. The basic reason is that feathers are already enough for the animal to survive. It's a near perfect status that doesn't need any further evolution for it to get better. How can feathers get any better than they are today? Not only does it provide insulation but it also provides flight. It's hard for a mutation or adaptation to get any better than it is. If there's no need to chnge or no need to adapt, then any mutation that isn't strong enough will not survive and pass on it's mutated genes to the next generation. That's a fundamental idea of evolution.

Of course... you may be overlooking birds like penguins, who arguably, although they have feathers, their feathers are adapted not for flying, but for providing insulation and being streamlined for diving in arctic conditions. The only reason why this could have occured is because of adaptation to the cold weather. How's that for "no evolution of feathers".

Let's talk now about irreducable complexity. It's a very common argument with creationists. The basic idea is that life is too complex and cannot have evolved without the touch of an intelligent creator. It's true that the human body contains too many interchangable parts that cannot exist without each other. But the thing you are overlooking is that the complex mechanisms that comprise the complex life form did not appear overnight. Complex animals have been around for a billion years. But even back in those days, what's considered a complex animal is nothing like the complex animals of today. Evolution is like a tiny, small, miniscule modification to the next generation of creatures, that builds up over an extremely long period of time. As these modifications build up, they eventually become the complex organs that we have today.

Let's consider that evolution's argument is that all animals have a common ancestor. How common is determined by how far back in time you want to trace itIf you want to simplify the idea, think that evolution is very much like an animal, over several generations, will develop, branch out, and have different organs to do different functions. This very much explains why humans, dogs, and cats all have: a brain, a stomach, and a heart. Although the bone structure and inner workings are different, they still have those in common. Why? Because nearly a 200 million years ago, their ancestors ago, the first mammals, all had those things, which they had inherited from their predecessors.

I'll end on that, but I'll iterate this: Evolution is _not_ coincidence. It is an extremely slow process of experimentation, refinement, and growth on a scale of several billion years. Those who aren't strong enough to pass on their genes to their offspring will die out, and only the ones who are strong enough will continue to exist (in no way does this mean survival of the fittest; it actually means survival of the fit enough to live on and reproduce.)

Any further questions? I'll leave with one last note: Yes, Evolution is not complete. But that doesn't mean that it is wrong and has to be discarded. It means that it has to be continually checked, examined, and tested (something you CAN'T do with Creationist Theory). Because although Evolution has some holes in it, it doesn't mean that it's completely wrong - because evolution explains a lot of things in biology, chemistry and even sociology that wouldn't make sense unless we have the theory of evolution. Throw out Evolution, and entire fields of science ceases to exist. That's all there is to it.
1583 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Anywhere but here.
Offline
Posted 6/17/08

jellybean101 wrote:

but unlike Darwin, i am not an aethiest.


Darwin wasn't an atheist, he was Christian. He remained Christian while he was writing the original theory of Evolution, and lost faith on God after his daughter passed away, becoming agnostic instead. (Agnostic NOT EQUAL to Atheist).
33940 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / Ocean..ia
Offline
Posted 6/17/08

brennan wrote:


jellybean101 wrote:

but unlike Darwin, i am not an aethiest.


Darwin wasn't an atheist, he was Christian. He remained Christian while he was writing the original theory of Evolution, and lost faith on God after his daughter passed away, becoming agnostic instead. (Agnostic NOT EQUAL to Atheist).


oh. ok then. i guess i got it mixed up~
1583 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Anywhere but here.
Offline
Posted 6/17/08

jellybean101 wrote:


brennan wrote:


jellybean101 wrote:

but unlike Darwin, i am not an aethiest.


Darwin wasn't an atheist, he was Christian. He remained Christian while he was writing the original theory of Evolution, and lost faith on God after his daughter passed away, becoming agnostic instead. (Agnostic NOT EQUAL to Atheist).


oh. ok then. i guess i got it mixed up~


Nah, it's a very common perception, don't sweat it. Also, Darwin isn't solely responsible for the theory, and the theory that we have today is very, very different to his original theory. It's safe to say that the theory's been revised by the scientific community several dozen times since then. Of course, most people out there, especially creationists who are unhappy with the idea, like to spread ideas like Darwin was a devil-worshipping evil person in order to further their goals. Next time, if you're unsure of something, look it up :3

16330 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Metro City
Offline
Posted 6/17/08
Yes
33940 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / Ocean..ia
Offline
Posted 6/17/08

brennan wrote:


jellybean101 wrote:


brennan wrote:


jellybean101 wrote:

but unlike Darwin, i am not an aethiest.


Darwin wasn't an atheist, he was Christian. He remained Christian while he was writing the original theory of Evolution, and lost faith on God after his daughter passed away, becoming agnostic instead. (Agnostic NOT EQUAL to Atheist).


oh. ok then. i guess i got it mixed up~


Nah, it's a very common perception, don't sweat it. Also, Darwin isn't solely responsible for the theory, and the theory that we have today is very, very different to his original theory. It's safe to say that the theory's been revised by the scientific community several dozen times since then. Of course, most people out there, especially creationists who are unhappy with the idea, like to spread ideas like Darwin was a devil-worshipping evil person in order to further their goals. Next time, if you're unsure of something, look it up :3



owkie, thanks
1388 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Laguna, Philippines
Offline
Posted 6/17/08
I DON'T LOOK LIKE A MONKEY... I DON'T HAVE A TAIL...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.