[Discussion] Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[Howard]

^^^You didn't answer my original question because you can't. All you can do is speculate. Your Stickleback example is simply the Hox gene just turning on or turning off genes. That has nothing to do with new

^^^In an controlled environment we don't have to wait as long as the natural environment does to see results. We all know that mutations are rare in nature but in the fruit fly experiment for example, creating mutations wasn't a problem. The problem was that none became fixed and that variences of change within the fruit fly had limits. In other words the DNA of the fruit fly would only allow so much.

I won't bother replying to your little smart *** remarks. Fact is you can't offer any observed evidence showing that a living ever had dna information it needed to become a different living thing. < Thats clarification of the very simple question I originally asked and you mistakingly thought you answered.
Anyway, enjoy your theoretical belief system.

Someone's getting their feelings hurt over some humor on the internet. I'll make sure not to post at 3-4am so I have a bit more of a filter so I can screen what I say so people with different beliefs understand I don't give a single **** about what they believe.

Anyway even in a controlled environment macroevolution won't be able to be produced recurrently in a lifetime . Macroevolution is the culmination of all the microevolutions that eventually change an animal to the point of not being able to breed with a previous incarnation. There are various examples of this happening in nature. I named two and you ignored both.

I answered your questions with correct answers, maybe clarify your questions better next time no one on the internet is going to know you want examples of macroevolution simply by saying and I'll quote you again.

until someone can show me a species today that has genetic information that could one day evolve it into something new.

new
1. Not existing before; made, introduced, or discovered recently or now for the first time.

Sticklebacks that become Sticklebacks without that spine/midsection over a longer period of time in a new environment is an example of what you asked for. A species with information to become something new. Again as I said, I cannot provide the kind of evidence you're asking for because as I've stated several times this type of evolution takes more than a lifetime to observe. I truly believe nothing short of a time-lapse video of macroevolution would satisfy you even then you'd argue that you can't directly see the fish/animals not being able to breed ("maybe they just stopped ****ing because they don't like each other anymore") so it's still invalid evidence. It would take several hundred generations of people to document an instance of macroevolution first hand. Even in a lab.

After some research I actually found an example in plants. Keep in mind however I'm no biologist and neither are you apparently.

You must be registered for see links

Later studies showed that at least one of his elementary species was a tetraploid (see below) and it established itself as a new species in self-fertilizing evening primrose.

Though you'll say "plants aren't animals, it's invalid." so again, as I've said several times instead of getting offended just believe whatever you want to believe. To me you're some dude on the internet who made an alt to debate about something you seem too unsure about to debate about on his main. I could care less what you think, feel, believe or care about Anon.

Anyway, enjoy getting mad at people on the internet for their "theoretical belief systems."

Edit: After thinking on it a while I want to ask. What do you believe? How did we get from a molten rock in space with no form of life to what we are now without a way for a single cell to become multicellular or without evolution?

 

[Bored38]

Someone's getting their feelings hurt over some humor on the internet. I'll make sure not to post at 3-4am so I have a bit more of a filter so I can screen what I say so people with different beliefs understand I don't give a single **** about what they believe.

Anyway even in a controlled environment macroevolution won't be able to be produced recurrently in a lifetime . Macroevolution is the culmination of all the microevolutions that eventually change an animal to the point of not being able to breed with a previous incarnation. There are various examples of this happening in nature. I named two and you ignored both.

I answered your questions with correct answers, maybe clarify your questions better next time no one on the internet is going to know you want examples of macroevolution simply by saying and I'll quote you again.



new
1. Not existing before; made, introduced, or discovered recently or now for the first time.

Sticklebacks that become Sticklebacks without that spine/midsection over a longer period of time in a new environment is an example of what you asked for. A species with information to become something new. Again as I said, I cannot provide the kind of evidence you're asking for because as I've stated several times this type of evolution takes more than a lifetime to observe. I truly believe nothing short of a time-lapse video of macroevolution would satisfy you even then you'd argue that you can't directly see the fish/animals not being able to breed ("maybe they just stopped ****ing because they don't like each other anymore") so it's still invalid evidence. It would take several hundred generations of people to document an instance of macroevolution first hand. Even in a lab.

After some research I actually found an example in plants. Keep in mind however I'm no biologist and neither are you apparently.

You must be registered for see links

Though you'll say "plants aren't animals, it's invalid." so again, as I've said several times instead of getting offended just believe whatever you want to believe. To me you're some dude on the internet who made an alt to debate about something you seem too unsure about to debate about on his main. I could care less what you think, feel, believe or care about Anon.

Anyway, enjoy getting mad at people on the internet for their "theoretical belief systems."

Sigh...Considering your original remarks to my post, I'd say your the one with a case of butthurt, not me. Clearly this topic matters more to you than me. I could careless but you put your faith where you like bro
As for your plant link, honestly I didn't make it past the "disclaimer" lol, pre introduction. I'll give it some time til they get that new idea alittle more worked out before I go poking holes in it.
Macro evolution time lapse video? Nah... I'd settle for a solid fossil record showing the process and I don't mean one of those crude fakes that have been paraded out in the past to desperately try to pass off science theory as fact. There should be a multitude of them.
/Thread

 

[Howard]

Sigh...Considering your original remarks to my post, I'd say your the one with a case of butthurt, not me. Clearly this topic matters more to you than me. I could careless but you put your faith where you like bro
As for your plant link, honestly I didn't make it past the "disclaimer" lol, pre introduction. I'll give it some time til they get that new idea alittle more worked out before I go poking holes in it.
Macro evolution time lapse video? Nah... I'd settle for a solid fossil record showing the process and I don't mean one of those crude fakes that have been paraded out in the past to desperately try to pass off science theory as fact. There should be a multitude of them.
/Thread

Yeah, you can tell how important this is by my continual jokes, at even my own expense. This is super duper cereal to me not a way to waste time.

Ohhh the old "I could prove you wrong, but why waste my time?" argument. It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for him.

lmfao a solid fossil record? Okay alright that was a laugh. Not every species of animal is going to be fossilized let alone the in-between microevolutions to the species. That's like asking for a time lapse video, that's exactly what it's like because that's what it is. A snapshot of every possible step for each microevolution. Do you know the conditions required for a viable fossil to be produced? Let me guess, you also want fossils of entire animals as well, not those meager one bone sculpted in rock ones especially with the oppressive evo zealots trying to fill in the gaps and deduce how the animal may have looked from several fossils.

I don't feel like explaining how fossils are formed and how rare it actually is. Here's a kid's website to do it for me.

You must be registered for see links

The new idea definitely needs some work I mean, the experiments happened last century in 1901–1903, 1909, 1910 we still need to work out all the kinks. However you exceeded my expectations and found a different way to say "nope, that's invalid." other than "plants aren't animals." Which is what I was expecting.

Oh, something I want to mention. Feel free to make fun of me all you want. I do it all the time. EG:

Spoiler

I'll make sure not to post at 3-4am so I have a bit more of a filter so I can screen what I say

Keep in mind however I'm no biologist

Now that we have all this free time where you simply say "nope, invalid /thread" I'll point out the edit I put in a while ago so we have something to talk about.

Edit: After thinking on it a while I want to ask. What do you believe? How did we get from a molten rock in space with no form of life to what we are now without a way for a single cell to become multicellular or without evolution?

 

[Punk Hazard]

Can you explain to me how evolution is why vaccines work? I agree with some other stuff, but this has me stumped.

They have the same underlying basis: Adaptation to increase survival. Immune system is exposed to an inert strain of something, becoming familiar with it. Then, if the real thing comes along, the immune system can better defend against it because it's been familiarized with the strain. The process is the same that happens in evolution, but on a much larger and more complex scale. The argument that I made with the vaccine was to show that the process does indeed happen, so its fully possible for evolution to be true.

 

[Bored38]

Quote Originally Posted by Howard View Post
Edit: After thinking on it a while I want to ask. What do you believe? How did we get from a molten rock in space with no form of life to what we are now without a way for a single cell to become multicellular or without evolution?

Just to be clear I don't think evolution is an impossibility. I just hate hearing theories preached as gospel no matter how plausible they are in the same way I hate hearing it from the religous folk. I'm probably older than most here and i'm not new to any of this.
As for my personal beliefs? I understand that theres very little I can know with certainty and not strongly holding on to a particular view point allows me to look at others perspectives with an unbiased open mind.
Many years ago I started out as a Christian apologist. After a few years of earnest research into other religions and Science I discovered my belief had no more standing than any other. The world I observe around me leads me to believe there is an intelligent conscience force responsible for and guiding creation. Beyond those terms i'm very open minded but I don't attach personality or personhood to that force and although unlikely I don't exclude it either. I don't see creation as a random event or without intent.

I don't pretend to know what the purpose of life is but I see limitless potential if we as a species observe the natural law and work together.
I'm most interested to see how the Quantum fields of Science change our way viewing the universe in the years to come.

Just one last thing in reference to earlier discussion. We both know where the majority stand in the field of Science but there is a minority of Scientist that argues Science with Science against the majority view with legitimate evidence of their own. To me thats no different than the conflicts in societies or in religions and just because a majority has an advantage in numbers, doesn't mean the minorities views are unintelligent or unfounded or biased. As long as theres even the slightest chance you can be wrong about something, you should be willing to consider or at the very least respect an opposing view point.

 

[The Necromancer]

What this thread has shown me, is that anyone who doesn't believe in Evolution doesn't understand even its fundamental processes.

It's funny how so many people on here can perfectly explain how Kaguya's descendants have their abilities based on their family lines and genealogy, but can't understand that evolution works in exactly the same way.

Uchiha = Humans
Senju = Chimps
Hagoromo = Common ancestor

Problem solved.

 

[Bored38]

What this thread has shown me, is that anyone who doesn't believe in Evolution doesn't understand even its fundamental processes.

It's funny how so many people on here can perfectly explain how Kaguya's descendants have their abilities based on their family lines and genealogy, but can't understand that evolution works in exactly the same way.


Uchiha = Humans
Senju = Chimps
Hagoromo = Common ancestor

Problem solved.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)

Here are just a few quotes from "real" Scientist that would care to disagree with you. But hey i'm sure its just due to their bias and not their understanding of evolution.

 

[Multiply]

This guy is just grasping at straws. Just let him and let this thread die.

 

[The Necromancer]

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)

Here are just a few quotes from "real" Scientist that would care to disagree with you. But hey i'm sure its just due to their bias and not their understanding of evolution.

Every single quote has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, but with the Big Bang Theory, which the Theory of Evolution would stem from.

Which means those quotes have nothing to do with this debate.

To say that Evolution is in question because the creation of the universe is in question is foolish.

 

[Bored38]

Every single quote has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, but with the Big Bang Theory, which the Theory of Evolution would stem from.

Which means those quotes have nothing to do with this debate.

To say that Evolution is in question because the creation of the universe is in question is foolish.

Not true. Hoyle just to speak of one of these went out of his way to show the mathematical impossibility of biological evolution.

 

[The Necromancer]

Not true. Hoyle just to speak of one of these went out of his way to show the mathematical impossibility of biological evolution.

No he doesn't.

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God."

Not about Evolution. Once again speaking on the creation of life.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Quote Originally Posted by Howard View Post
Edit: After thinking on it a while I want to ask. What do you believe? How did we get from a molten rock in space with no form of life to what we are now without a way for a single cell to become multicellular or without evolution?

Just to be clear I don't think evolution is an impossibility. I just hate hearing theories preached as gospel no matter how plausible they are in the same way I hate hearing it from the religous folk. I'm probably older than most here and i'm not new to any of this.
As for my personal beliefs? I understand that theres very little I can know with certainty and not strongly holding on to a particular view point allows me to look at others perspectives with an unbiased open mind.
Many years ago I started out as a Christian apologist. After a few years of earnest research into other religions and Science I discovered my belief had no more standing than any other. The world I observe around me leads me to believe there is an intelligent conscience force responsible for and guiding creation. Beyond those terms i'm very open minded but I don't attach personality or personhood to that force and although unlikely I don't exclude it either. I don't see creation as a random event or without intent.

I don't pretend to know what the purpose of life is but I see limitless potential if we as a species observe the natural law and work together.
I'm most interested to see how the Quantum fields of Science change our way viewing the universe in the years to come.

Just one last thing in reference to earlier discussion. We both know where the majority stand in the field of Science but there is a minority of Scientist that argues Science with Science against the majority view with legitimate evidence of their own. To me thats no different than the conflicts in societies or in religions and just because a majority has an advantage in numbers, doesn't mean the minorities views are unintelligent or unfounded or biased. As long as theres even the slightest chance you can be wrong about something, you should be willing to consider or at the very least respect an opposing view point.

Go to page 1 of this thread and re read the op. I have no interest in whether or not there is a'creative, conscious intelligence' behind life, this thread isn't asking that question neither is the person who you quoted. In case you failed to realize: this thread is about science, the biological theory of evolution to be exact, not some dim witted creation apologetic spam.
OK, so let's say there is a creative intelligence behind life, can you explain by what mechanism this agency caused unicellular life to develop into multicellular forms? Why did this agency (and keep scripture out of it as I said in the op give me a secular, scientific reason as I've already given you a bloody concession) decide to 'create' species such as the dinosaurs and the trilobite's only to have them go extinct later onwards? Why are the oldest fossils the simplest in form, shape and structure and as you keep moving toward the present why do we observe steadily increasing levels of biological complexity? Why can all living things be divided into 'clades' or family groups, why do dolphins and whales have lungs while other fish don't? Why did your creative intelligence create the ostritch with wings(that any semi decent designer would only design if it were meant for flight) yet they never fly? Why did he/she/it also decide to give them to the penguins when all they do is Bob around on ice or swim in the water, but NEVER fly ? If your creative intelligence was going to give wings for flight, why didn't he give bats and flying insects wings made of feathers like he gave the birds(a feather is a useful component for a wing, a designer who designed each organism individually would do at least that).

Don't give me a lecture on world peace, the virtues of human co operation, the details of your learning as an evangelical apologist, I don't care for any of that , and especially not in this thread. Don't copy paste flawed, distorted and long since disproved alleged mathematical and statistical models disproving evolution. For once, roll up your sleeves, put aside your cross and your bible, and try to give an explanation for the facts, one that actually explains something and doesn't just invoke god for everything and anything.

If you can't do any of that(as all you creationists can do is attempt to belittle and distract with distorted proofs to desperately try and disprove what you falsely accuse as being the enemy of faith) your lot leaves the job of the actual explaining to the scientists, while you yourself contribute nothing to our understanding of the world around us. Thank you and have a good day.

 

[Bored38]

Go to page 1 of this thread and re read the op. I have no interest in whether or not there is a'creative, conscious intelligence' behind life, this thread isn't asking that question neither is the person who you quoted. In case you failed to realize: this thread is about science, the biological theory of evolution to be exact, not some dim witted creation apologetic spam.
OK, so let's say there is a creative intelligence behind life, can you explain by what mechanism this agency caused unicellular life to develop into multicellular forms? Why did this agency (and keep scripture out of it as I said in the op give me a secular, scientific reason as I've already given you a bloody concession) decide to 'create' species such as the dinosaurs and the trilobite's only to have them go extinct later onwards? Why are the oldest fossils the simplest in form, shape and structure and as you keep moving toward the present why do we observe steadily increasing levels of biological complexity? Why can all living things be divided into 'clades' or family groups, why do dolphins and whales have lungs while other fish don't? Why did your creative intelligence create the ostritch with wings(that any semi decent designer would only design if it were meant for flight) yet they never fly? Why did he/she/it also decide to give them to the penguins when all they do is Bob around on ice or swim in the water, but NEVER fly ? If your creative intelligence was going to give wings for flight, why didn't he give bats and flying insects wings made of feathers like he gave the birds(a feather is a useful component for a wing, a designer who designed each organism individually would do at least that).

Don't give me a lecture on world peace, the virtues of human co operation, the details of your learning as an evangelical apologist, I don't care for any of that , and especially not in this thread. Don't copy paste flawed, distorted and long since disproved alleged mathematical and statistical models disproving evolution. For once, roll up your sleeves, put aside your cross and your bible, and try to give an explanation for the facts, one that actually explains something and doesn't just invoke god for everything and anything.

If you can't do any of that(as all you creationists can do is attempt to belittle and distract with distorted proofs to desperately try and disprove what you falsely accuse as being the enemy of faith) your lot leaves the job of the actual explaining to the scientists, while you yourself contribute nothing to our understanding of the world around us. Thank you and have a good day.

You can sit and spin on your assumptions of me. Not once have I envoked scripture of any religion.
Fredrick Hoyle as well as others have said that mutations and natural selection were'nt enough for the evolution of the species.
I'm not required to answer the question of creation because i'm not the claiming to have the answer. You are.... and you can't. Not only that but theres divisions even in your own camp. Your certainly not short on theories but your whoefully short on proof.

 

[Howard]

You can sit and spin on your assumptions of me. Not once have I envoked scripture of any religion.
Fredrick Hoyle as well as others have said that mutations and natural selection were'nt enough for the evolution of the species.
I'm not required to answer the question of creation because i'm not the claiming to have the answer. You are.... and you can't. Not only that but theres divisions even in your own camp. Your certainly not short on theories but your whoefully short on proof.

I'll mention this before continuing about your last post I most certainly respect your right to have an opinion or viewpoint different than mine. You could run around yelling "the Earth is flat" and I'd let you to your own devices, but I do not have to respect your opinion or viewpoint. Especially if I believe it to be flawed or stupid which flip flopping on saying "evolution isn't a thing, but it's not an impossibility" is just that for me a flawed point of view. You can do the same thing to me, and you have done so this entire thread by ignoring every example I've brought up.

Now moving on to the next thing. You mention people in this thread being short on proof wherein you told me directly the only proof you will take as valid is an immaculate fossil record with every single species and every microevoultionary stepping stone. No other proof will cut it for you as I said a while ago, the only thing that will convince you is a metaphorical time lapse video of macroevolution. As I stated no one can provide that, it's something that's impossible because of the way fossils are formed and found. I myself have given you at least five examples answering questions you've proposed but you've ignored several of them and said "/thread" after doing so as if you've solo'ed me and this thread with impeccable reasoning.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Goddammit, I go away for like three days and there's something that's under one of my college specializations as a Hot Thread. Why!? Why can't I just appear when this thread was just starting out? So many contradictions, so much headache.

 

[The Necromancer]

Goddammit, I go away for like three days and there's something that's under one of my college specializations as a Hot Thread. Why!? Why can't I just appear when this thread was just starting out? So many contradictions, so much headache.

It's almost a catch 22 in and of itself.

Those who don't believe in Evolution disagree with fact. Yet claim to desire proof.

So when provided proof, their disagreement with established fact leads them to disagree with the proof.


Essentially, there's literally no reason to discuss evolution anymore, because those who believe in it simply understand fact, while those who don't, by definition, will not accept fact as fact.

 

[DominiqueX]

If evolution is a lie:

- did dinosaurs live with humans then? Or are they a lie?
- And was "god" a sadistic a**hole, forbidding penguins and ostriches to fly, whales to breathe through gills etc.?

 

[Marin]

If evolution is a lie:

- did dinosaurs live with humans then? Or are they a lie?
- And was "god" a sadistic a**hole, forbidding penguins and ostriches to fly, whales to breathe through gills etc.?

- ARK Survival Evolved
- Penguins swim, they're aquatic. God likes birda that can swim... and wear tuxidos

 

[Rogue Pit]

Just compile the facts for each side.
Chances of occurrence vs the chance of w/e else you believe.

 

[Karrya]

This is a silly question life doesnt follow one concrete path