93 replies to this topic

[Cryptkeeper]

well god if it or what ever exists does it doubt its own existance does it know why it exists in a way is its very flaw that of being perfect so many questions niether religion nor

science has any answers for heck even any rational statement to prove something exists is not with out its holes.

[AllStarZ]

What happens if a god doesn't know they exist? What happens if they're not aware of their own existence? I can keep going on but ultimately I can't find a good satisfactory answer.

[General]

Evolution alone cannot prove God doesn't exists , it will only prove holy books wrong.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 ailestrike, on 24 Oct 2007, 0:44, said:

 Pandut, on 23 Oct 2007, 20:18, said:

I dont believe in ''God'' or any sort of holy crap, I believe in evolution.

This isn't the topic for that. Just because you don't believe in god, doesn't mean you can't at least try to put yourself in a theist's position. Also, you would do well to watch your tongue.

Well it is very difficult when you realize just how absurd their arguments are.

[Golan]

That´s a generalization that won´t get you very far. Science/Atheism (or whatever position you claim to have) has/had many absurd arguments as well but you certainly wouldn´t accept if someone would say that thus science/atheism would be absurd as well.

Thinking about it, let´s give it a try...
It´s IMO very hard to believe that the ToE is true, seeing the crap that was seen as valid theories of evolution before. Just look at Lamarckism and all the other bullshit - the modern ToE is probably just another freak-story that simply hasn´t been proven wrong yet.

Edited by Golan, 24 October 2007 - 10:51.

[Wizard]

I really have to agree with Golan on this one. ToE is just the current scientific paradigm explaining creationism. I am sure that in 100 years there will be a new one based on different facts we have ommitted or can't record yet. However the theory of God will be there still. Perhaps it might have evolved to?!?

[Alias]

Lets raise some "anti-evolution" points here.

• If everything is just evolved "beings", then how come there is no steps of evolution shown in fossils? Sure there is extinct creatures, but not many animals of nearly the same look but with a different characteristic - that would show a so called chain.
  
  
• If we all evolved from bacteria, then how come bacteria aren't some massive super species now? (It really doesn't make sense that we evolve all this stuff while they stay the same for however many billion years.)
  
  
• The universe can't be around for longer than around 20000 years, because if it was - the sun would have already decayed (it currently shrinks at a rate of around 1.5m/h). Also if the earth has been rotating for say, 200 million years - it would be distorted due to the torsion caused by the slowing rate of how fast the earth revolves.
  
  
• Vestigial organs. The last nail in the coffin. Just because removing the appendix has no apparent negative effect on the body (evolution states this is a "hand-me-down" from a previous creature, thinking about it - if we are the "ultimate evolution", then why hasn't our DNA wiped out this "useless" organ yet?) - doesn't mean it has no purpose. Sure we know some, but we don't know all. Think of what somebody 200 years ago would've done if you said there was a way to get out in space. They wouldn't believe you - just as you push some of these anti-evolution theories away simply because you think it isn't possible - doesn't mean it is. Just because the appendix isn't critical, doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose.

Edited by Alias, 24 October 2007 - 14:03.

[Dauth]

Ok, and how fast do you want these debunked?

Quote

# If everything is just evolved "beings", then how come there is no steps of evolution shown in fossils? Sure there is extinct creatures, but not many animals of nearly the same look but with a different characteristic - that would show a so called chain.

Steps are shown, from different ages in the rock, we see vatious changes, from skulls expanding in humans, to increased length of limbs in other animals.

Quote

If we all evolved from bacteria, then how come bacteria aren't some massive super species now? (It really doesn't make sense that we evolve all this stuff while they stay the same for however many billion years.)

Evolution is random, a mutation is tried in one genration, if it works then it superceeds, otheriwse it does out. Everyone understand this? Now some organisms are simple but very suited ot their environs, and any mutation would result in death, therefore they don't evolve past their state. For example the lifeforms around volcanic vents udner the sea, ones who could move away from the vent would die, through lack of food and heat.

Sentience in Sharks would be suicide, If one animal shared beyong the pack mentality it would starve and die.

Quote

The universe can't be around for longer than around 20000 years, because if it was - the sun would have already decayed (it currently shrinks at a rate of around 1.5m/h). Also if the earth has been rotating for say, 200 million years - it would be distorted due to the torsion caused by the slowing rate of how fast the earth revolves.

Where in the name of *insert expletive here* did you get those figures? have you not heard of second generation stars? Or are you assuming like Kelvin did so many hundreds of years ago that the sun burns chemically? This is utter nonsense and the sort of thing that really is a crime against the mind.

Quote

Vestigial organs. The last nail in the coffin. Just because removing the appendix has no apparent negative effect on the body (evolution states this is a "hand-me-down" from a previous creature, thinking about it - if we are the "ultimate evolution", then why hasn't our DNA wiped out this "useless" organ yet?) - doesn't mean it has no purpose. Sure we know some, but we don't know all. Think of what somebody 200 years ago would've done if you said there was a way to get out in space. They wouldn't believe you - just as you push some of these anti-evolution theories away simply because you think it isn't possible - doesn't mean it is. Just because the appendix isn't critical, doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose.

Who says evolution is finished? No decent scientist said we are the best humanity will ever be, if 100,000 years i guess (and expect) that we'll only have 4 toes, no appendix and be taller, (assuming no apocalypse). I also reckon the appendix will be all but gone.

Edit :

And speaking as a Scientist, will people please understand, we still want new evidence, we want to change, we want something that disproves a theory, thats the whole point of science, "Lets make this theory better". Just because the rules are written in stone for religions, do not assume it for science.

Edited by Dauth, 24 October 2007 - 15:02.

[Crush3r]

Ok, those anti-evolution points are the stupidest things I've ever heard. (I'd like to say no offence, but I can't)

And BTW, the Sun is not shrinking, it's growing in size. (While shrinking in density, because it's fuel is being consumed)

[nova]

 IPS, on 23 Oct 2007, 16:51, said:

or can anyone tell me where life come from?

from the scientific stand point it came from lightning passing through gasses and we can create bacterium by electrifying gasses with no bacteria in it

[Golan]

 Alias, on 24 Oct 2007, 14:00, said:

If everything is just evolved "beings", then how come there is no steps of evolution shown in fossils? Sure there is extinct creatures, but not many animals of nearly the same look but with a different characteristic - that would show a so called chain.

Archaeopteryx. Coelacanth. Mankind.

 Alias, on 24 Oct 2007, 14:00, said:

If we all evolved from bacteria, then how come bacteria aren't some massive super species now? (It really doesn't make sense that we evolve all this stuff while they stay the same for however many billion years.)

Bacteria were and still are very effective. Keep in mind that not every organism of a species necessarily evolves - it may very well happen that only a portion of a species mutates. If both the initial and the mutated type are effective for survival, they may coexist for some time, with the mutated ones undergoing further mutations until the two evolved into different species and no longer endanger each other. Naturally, this is even more likely when there are indeed two populations of the same species spatially and geographically separated.

 Alias, on 24 Oct 2007, 14:00, said:

The universe can't be around for longer than around 20000 years, because if it was - the sun would have already decayed (it currently shrinks at a rate of around 1.5m/h). Also if the earth has been rotating for say, 200 million years - it would be distorted due to the torsion caused by the slowing rate of how fast the earth revolves.

The sun is supposed to be around for some additional 4billion years...
Earth is not a sphere, it´s an oblate spheroid.

 Alias, on 24 Oct 2007, 14:00, said:

Vestigial organs. The last nail in the coffin. Just because removing the appendix has no apparent negative effect on the body (evolution states this is a "hand-me-down" from a previous creature, thinking about it - if we are the "ultimate evolution", then why hasn't our DNA wiped out this "useless" organ yet?) - doesn't mean it has no purpose. Sure we know some, but we don't know all. Think of what somebody 200 years ago would've done if you said there was a way to get out in space. They wouldn't believe you - just as you push some of these anti-evolution theories away simply because you think it isn't possible - doesn't mean it is. Just because the appendix isn't critical, doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose.

In how far is this supposed to contradict the ToE? If the appendix had a purpose not known to us today that would simply be a classification mistake and would in fact probably still be covered by the ToE.

[Crush3r]

The appendix actually has a use in the immune system, but we can do without it.

[General]

 Golan, on 24 Oct 2007, 18:26, said:

Coelacanth

Please man , he still lives But seriously be more carefull when you support something

[Golan]

 Trousevil, on 24 Oct 2007, 17:35, said:

 Golan, on 24 Oct 2007, 18:26, said:

Coelacanth

Please man , he still lives But seriously be more carefull when you support something

So what´s your point? In how far does the fact that Coelacanth still live today make them any less of a chain link? I´ve listed humans too and I can assure that I´m aware that they live today as well.

[Cryptkeeper]

I think hes talking about Darwinism becuase those none pf those anti evolutionary points make absolute no sense in regard to the to any of the current theories

but just like anything in science it constantly changing as new experiments and info is found.

which is why i trust it more then any religions concept of god or gods not to say there wrong they just don't ever change and there beliefs are so absolute that they don't except that its possible that there wrong.


which is why I'm agnostic i believe the answer may be there but since this universe is so crowded with bits of information many being either false or right or possible partially right that to conclude that you are absolutely right is like concluding you are god.

[Ellipsis]

No matter how many facts you throw at me, I'll still believe is the only great creator. I agree with Alias.

[General]

 Golan, on 24 Oct 2007, 18:48, said:

So what´s your point? In how far does the fact that Coelacanth still live today make them any less of a chain link? I´ve listed humans too and I can assure that I´m aware that they live today as well.

But as we know evolution necessary for survive as theory thinks , so if that fish evolved and adapted to new circumstances in its new form , how come previous one still there , its like finding a live velociraptor now

I personally think if evolution still possible , its God who first created the material .

[Ellipsis]

True.

[Golan]

 Trousevil, on 25 Oct 2007, 10:00, said:

But as we know evolution necessary for survive as theory thinks , so if that fish evolved and adapted to new circumstances in its new form , how come previous one still there , its like finding a live velociraptor now

See the replies to Alias "Why do Bacteria still live today?" argument. It´s it more like having humans and apes coexisting. ToE is not "survival of the fittest" but rather "survival of those fitting enough".

 Trousevil, on 25 Oct 2007, 10:00, said:

I personally think if evolution still possible , its God who first created the material .

Indeed that seems to be a logic possibility.

Edited by Golan, 25 October 2007 - 10:49.

[General]

You mean this :

[attachment=4582:Chart.JPG]

[Whitey]

If humans evolved from apes, why didn't all apes evolve? Or why didn't the genes that make us human die after the death of the carrier? Sure, it survived and was passed down and prospered. But some changes that are common to all humans today seem to be... useless, don't they? Why don't we have tails? Why would they get eliminated? Did all the humans with tails die off? How and why? I can only see them as being helpful (though I'd hate to have one because it would be ugly in my eyes).

[Golan]

 Boidy, on 25 Oct 2007, 20:36, said:

If humans evolved from apes, why didn't all apes evolve?

Because not all individuals mutated, thus there were always "pure" apes. With the chances for such mutations being rather minimal and considering the dimension of ape population, the mutated individuals were enough to establish a new species, but not to transform the whole existing population. Remember that evolution happens at random to a certain degree - just because some evolved does in no way mean that others had to do so too.

 Boidy, on 25 Oct 2007, 20:36, said:

Or why didn't the genes that make us human die after the death of the carrier?

Reproduction. (If that´s not an appropriate answer, i didn´t get the question )

 Boidy, on 25 Oct 2007, 20:36, said:

But some changes that are common to all humans today seem to be... useless, don't they? Why don't we have tails? Why would they get eliminated? Did all the humans with tails die off? How and why? I can only see them as being helpful (though I'd hate to have one because it would be ugly in my eyes).

Hominids already had degenerated tails long before humans evolved so there wasn´t much use in what was left of it, however, a human fetus will still have a short tail, though it gets absorbed by body mass. You think they´d be helpful? IMO it would have some severe drawbacks, mainly due to upright walk. With anatomy rotated by 90°, a tail wouldn´t fit well to the human muscles and vertebral column, requiring much more tissue to be used effectively and to avoid injuries. It may also have a questionable effect on balance as most of the body mass is positioned vertically above the legs, not in front of them.

[Whitey]

I actually answered the first to questions. It was a train of thought, bear with me.

As for the last part: Well, what has vertical walking done for us? I don't see why it would be necessary to the point that it would become dominant.

[Golan]

Sorry Boidy, but that´s a smartass comment that doesn´t suit you. To give you an idea of the answer: How did you type your post? What body parts did you use?

Damnid, now I need another freak opinion myself... *escapes to his secret secret laboratory*

Edited by Golan, 25 October 2007 - 21:57.

[CodeCat]

 Boidy, on 25 Oct 2007, 22:36, said:

If humans evolved from apes, why didn't all apes evolve? Or why didn't the genes that make us human die after the death of the carrier?

Why do I still enjoy playing Red Alert when C&C3 and SW are out?

You're thinking too much in terms of 'there can be only one', and 'survival of the fittest'. But those are only half-truths at best. 'Survival of the capable' is a better way of explaining it.

For starters, a whole species can't evolve. What happens is that one individual specimen acquires a certain trait that is at the very least not detrimental to its survival. And so it will breed as normal at first. As a result, its modified genes are passed on to the next generation. At this stage, the trait is possibly dormant, suppressed by the other genes. However, as the species breeds, the trait is spread further, and eventually the trait will surface again, only this time in many specimen. What happens next depends on how beneficial the trait is.

If the trait is not immediately very beneficial, nothing special will happen, and the species will continue as normal. The gene will remain in place in parts of the species' population. It is possible that the trait constitutes immunity to a disease, which would give the individuals with the trait an advantage over their peers if such a disease ever strikes. This is what's currently happening with people who have genetic immunity to HIV. This is also why the use of antibiotics is an increasingly futile battle: we wipe out perhaps 99% of the bacteria, but that 1% is immune, and will therefore survive and thrive despite our efforts until all of its kind are immune to the antibiotic. It's not that the others wouldn't have survived as well, but since we wiped them all out, we gave those with immunity free reign.

However if the trait is obviously beneficial, there is the possibility that the individuals with the trait will be more efficient at survival than their non-affected peers. In this case, it's likely that the non-affected population will simply be 'competed out' of the life cycle. The new strain is better at ensuring its survival, to the detriment, starvation and possibly eventually extinction of its former peers. A special case like this also occurs when exotic life forms are introduced into a foreign habitat: the exotic form is more efficient at survival than the native species, leading to the eventual extinction of the native species due to sheer outcompetition. This is also why we see that isolated islands like Madagascar and Australia have more unusual species; there is simply no competition from outside species to threaten them. But talk to any Australian about rabbits if you want to know what happens when the competition comes.