Er...I'm confused here....what exactly are you arguing about? You admit that allelic frequencies change over time (microevolution), and you apparently admit that new species can be formed as a result of these changes (macroevolution). What's the problem here? If these phenomena (really phenomenon since they are one and the same) are real then "survival of the fittest" is simply a logical extension of them.
Logical extension is not fact and you still need to prove how evolution has ever made a credible influence even with your very broad definition of it.
As far as I know you can catagorize people on these debates in these catagories
1. One who belives the earth is 5000 years old and God created everything.
2. One who belives that the earth is as old as scientists say and evolution did happen but god had something to do with it.
3. One who belives that the earth is as old as scientists say and evolution did happen but god might have had something to do with it.
4. One who belives that the earth is as old as scientists say and evolution did happen, god had nothing to do with it.
Science supports all catagories except nr 1., the rest is debateable but not on the grounds of science but on the grounds of religion and thats why these threads serve absolutely no purpose. Finaly I ask everyone, where do you stand in these catagories?
1. One who belives the earth is 5000 years old and God created everything.
2. One who belives that the earth is as old as scientists say and evolution did happen but god had something to do with it.
3. One who belives that the earth is as old as scientists say and evolution did happen but god might have had something to do with it.
4. One who belives that the earth is as old as scientists say and evolution did happen, god had nothing to do with it.
Science supports all catagories except nr 1., the rest is debateable but not on the grounds of science but on the grounds of religion and thats why these threads serve absolutely no purpose. Finaly I ask everyone, where do you stand in these catagories?
I believe in Evolution. I mean, duh. The whole natural world is constantly evolving.. changing.. It has to, to stay alive. I also believe in God.
I just don't believe that we came from monkeys.
I do believe in science. However.. One thing that irks me.. Science says.. "Show me, and I will believe.."..
I believe this is backwards, it should be "Believe, and I will show you."
I just don't believe that we came from monkeys.
I do believe in science. However.. One thing that irks me.. Science says.. "Show me, and I will believe.."..
I believe this is backwards, it should be "Believe, and I will show you."
hehe, okOriginally posted by: Eli
I believe in Evolution. I mean, duh. The whole natural world is constantly evolving.. changing.. It has to, to stay alive. I also believe in God.
I just don't believe that we came from monkeys.
I do believe in science. However.. One thing that irks me.. Science says.. "Show me, and I will believe.."..
I believe this is backwards, it should be "Believe, and I will show you."
how can you show someone if you have nothing to show but your own faith?
edt.. also what about other animals, did they evolve?
I believe we do not know. But to exclude any possibility includeing a God that 'created' it is narrow minded.
Scientist themselve agree on little of the specifics.
fair enough, then what happened, did species evolve with the assistance of god or were they all created by god in their current form?
What are you talking about? Who is Darwin?
Evolution is life, it's in everything, that's the proof.
Logical extension is not fact
What is fact? What do you base your belief in God on?
Evolution is life, it's in everything, that's the proof.
Logical extension is not fact
What is fact? What do you base your belief in God on?
Great, so now you are arguing against logic itself? Given two organisms it's quite obvious that the one better suited to its environment will survive longer than it's counterpart and pass its genes on to the next generation with greater efficiency...hence survival of the fittest. I wouldn't think proof of this was required but since you ask for it I can provide you with an example not out of the literature, but that I have seen with my own two eyes:
Yeast geneticists often work with strains called auxotrophs, meaning that they are deficient in some metabolic pathway and require external nutrients to grow. For example, ura- yeast require uracil for survival. When such yeast are grown on uracil-rich media and then replated on minimal media (i.e. lacking uracil) only those that have reverted to ura+ will survive, while most die off. This is a clear example of a mutation (in this case actually a reversion) confering a fitness advantage. What's more, the difference here was between two mere strains (a single gene no less)...magnitudes of variation on the species level were not even involved.
so what you are saying is that to begin with we had a certain number of species and they mated outside of their own species and there for we have another species?
I understand what you're saying Eli, but please don't use that phrase. It implies that some leap of faith is required to accept evolution as fact, when in reality the evidence alone is enough. The phrase "belief in evolution" is as meaningless as "belief in gravity"...both are both real phenomena and simply require acknowledgement as such. To contend otherwise is idiocy.
I know it's an unpleasant thought that we "came from monkeys", but somehow I don't think reality really cares whether or not humans find that superficially pleasing. But then most people place empirical value on their feelings and emotions without ever looking at the rational, the psychology, the conditioning, that goes into them. Monkeys aren't disgusting other than to our social standards, and like I said, do you really think reality is based on the fact that we don't want to be connected to monkeys because they are "dumb" and fling their own feces.
Name calling gets you no friends.
I'm man enough to say I do not know. It is obvious that you do not know either. What does that make you?
Neither does refusing to admit when you are mistaken, and continuing to cling to an unteneble position. There is no shame in changing one's beliefs in the face of new information...if novel evidence came out tomorrow that evolution was flawed in some way I would be the first to clap its discoverer on the back and call for the Nobel Prize. Scientists everywhere would do the same.
Regardless, I think someone who contends that 1+1 =! 2 can be safely be regarded as an idiot (philosophical arguments aside), and that is effectively what "creationists" are doing.
If you propose to tell the absolute truth, and imho you are far from it, then you are no better than those you decry!
Your arguments have shown nothing but scant human involvement and absolutely nothing that provides an excuse for our current condition.
"God works in mysterious ways!"
Your arguments have shown nothing but scant human involvement and absolutely nothing that provides an excuse for our current condition.
"God works in mysterious ways!"
Originally posted by: Czar
and the pointless flamewar goes on
Discorse amoung friends is never pointless!
I hardly call this a duscussion, its an argument of two sidesOriginally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: Czar
and the pointless flamewar goes on
Discorse amoung friends is never pointless!
I never claimed to know the "Absolute Truth", only the truth according the evidence at hand. There is nothing "absolute" about it--it's quite possible that on another planet evolution would not apply. But on this one it does and to suggest otherwise without some new evidence is pointless.
Similarly, I have not mentioned God in any way, his existence or nonexistence does not lie within the domain of science. It is quite possible to believe in God AND acknowledge the reality of evolution, a concept that "creationists" would do well to consider. All that has been shown (here and in previous CvE threads) is that:
1) Genes can and do change over time.
2) Those changes can lead to new species.
3) Species better suited to their environment can pass their genes on to the next generation with greater effeciency, leading to their eventual predominance over the "weaker" species.
Edit: Clarified a couple of points.
Originally posted by: Czar
I hardly call this a duscussion, its an argument of two sidesOriginally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: Czar
and the pointless flamewar goes on
Discorse amoung friends is never pointless!
Does that meant that those with different opinions cannot be friends?
News to me! I have always found myself at ease mostly around those I can disagree with in a respectable manor and find those that agree with me absolutely rather boring. I can learn nothing from the latter.
the difference on an argument and a discussion is that with a discussion both sides are open to the other sides thoughts on the matter, with an argument that doesnt happen and neither sides perspective on the matter has been changed.Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: Czar
I hardly call this a duscussion, its an argument of two sidesOriginally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: Czar
and the pointless flamewar goes on
Discorse amoung friends is never pointless!
Does that meant that those with different opinions cannot be friends?
News to me! I have always found myself at ease mostly around those I can disagree with in a respectable manor and find those that agree with me absolutely rather boring. I can learn nothing from the latter.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter