92 replies to this topic

[ihateharriers]

here's the answer:

WE DON"T KNOW YET.

as you have said, the THEORY of evolution is just a theory, so therefore we are still working parts of it. much of the later stuff is close to being proven, liek the dinos to birds theory, but the earlier stuff is much harder to explain becuase there simply a lack of fossils for once and small, multi-celled organisms. so as of right now, we really just have to go on specualtion for that stuff. when we can find reasonably good evidence, i'm sure the the theory will be update and modified as necessary. evolutionary biology is a relativly new subject, only a little more than 100 years old, and there is a lot to be developed. yes, it has holes in it, but definatley beats just saying a greater, omnipotent being did all this.

[MSpencer]

Evolution is the answer. We might not have all the evidence lined up into nice columns, and we'll never have absolute certainty like you have in mathematics or chemistry, but we're almost at the point where we're as far as we're going to be. Is it overwhelming evidence? From any other point of view, yes. Is it enough to plug all the holes? No.
As I was saying earlier, every six months or so, the modern theory undergoes a fairly big change to stay current with newly discovered information.

[Hostile]

Evolution answers the questions of the changes in organisms between the Great Leaps. It does not explain how organisms have great leaps to start with.

I cannot get an answer to a question. How do organisms make these large leaps in genetic structural changes?

It's not evolution or mass mutations. One does not sort of develope a highly sophisticated thing like a lung and it happens by accident, fully formed and working. There are organisms that had gills, than lungs and gills, than just lungs. While at the same time they developed legs. The odds of that happening through evolution is beyond accounting.

I never said evolution doesn't happen. But when it comes to the other 10% evolution cannot answer, I'll call that Intelligent Design till I find another term I'm more comfortable with.

[MSpencer]

Go back and read what I posted two posts ago. It answers the questions if you bother to read.
Go buy a book on punctuated equilibrium and the modern theory of evolution. I'm not going to bother trying to explain it to you when in any other person's mind, I have, and you just keep asking the same question until everyone else gives up. Buy the goddamn book or stop arguing. Punctuated equilibrium explains every massive leap and bound after mass extinctions, and also explains the development of major structures from common ancestory.

Of course, you're not the normal ID person. You just don't get it, so you give up and say god did it.

[Athena]

Regardless of evolution and such (I didn't get every post here), both of you believe what you believe, neither is going to convince the other so discussion seems kinda pointless, unless it's 'exchanging of thoughts' not 'convincing others you're the only one who's right'. As far as I understood from both of your posts, you both have an interesting point of view, imo. But just my 2 cents, as they say.

[chemical ali]

Yeah but me and spence are right and Hostile is wrong.

Theres no evidence for anything relgious wise.

[Athena]

What do you mean you and Spence?

I am openminded but I don't like it if people say their possibility is the only one. Now THAT is downright wrong a thing to do. By all means believe what you want to believe, but don't force your opinion on others and state it's the only way possible.

Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it can never be proven. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's not there.

I'm not Christian but I do think it's bad how you posted your "opinion" there.

[Gamemate]

Talk about being close minded. I do not believe in any religion but you do not see me going around trying to force an oppinion about it. Saying one is right and the other is not due to no proof where the proof lies in belief is quite absurd in my eyes.

For an none believer there is no proof no but for an believer there is. Proof of an existance of something is not needed, I believe in life on other planets wheras there is no proof of it. So I should just go hang myself since I am wrong because no visual proof exist? Would not think so. Evolution is just an theory aswell sure some parts does have evidence but there is still things missing.

[Beowulf]

A sane answer on a forum? NOWAI!
In all seriousness, I agree with gamemate on this one. This a pointless argument anyhow since neither side will give the other any room whatsoever. Do the smart thing and drop the fucking subject.

Edited by Beowulf, 29 July 2006 - 10:16 PM.

[Hostile]

Yeah but me and spence are right and Hostile is wrong.

Theres no evidence for anything relgious wise.

*whistles* MSpencer made a friend, I believe it's called a "Me To" forum warrior.

If the answer lies in a book somewhere explaining your answer, than why not paraphrase it for us? Or is our simple caveman minds too small to undrstand such "complex' processes?

@Ali Where the hell did you come from? I never stated MSpencer was wrong anymore than I declared I was correct about something? I never declared anything to be correct about. I simply asked how do organisms make large jumps in genetic structures not through evolution (selective breeding, natural selection) or mass mutations.

He told me there is some book I'm supposed to go read as it answers everything I ask. It must be some secret, he could have clearly defined and paraphrased what it said. Instead I have to go buy a book and read that.

I asked a clearly defined question of which I already know the answer, and some of you are clearly to ashamed to admit. Evolution only answers small portions as the theory of how organisms change. It is not a fact, it is not a law by scientific terms, it's a theory.

The answer is, nobody knows how they do it. They just do. Boom now we have feet, boom, now we have lungs. It all happens in short amounts of time (relatively) The theory of evolution has more holes in it than ethiopian swiss cheese.

I believe in evolution. I believe it answers a portion of the equation. But we simply don't have enough imformation yet to say it answers all. Because it doesn't. And there is not one God damned point of me using religion to answer questions other than a small reference to Intelligent Design (no God in that sentence ).

I'm equally fed up with scientific blowhards trying to "amaze the natives" with thier psyco babble as much as I'm tired of religious blowhards doing the same exact thing. I'm to the point where I'd be the first one to take a rope and hang all the scientists, priests, lawyers, and politicians.

I'm done with this discussion...gather a group of more than two people and you now have a collection of idiots.

[MSpencer]

The simple fact of the matter is I do not feel like sitting here and spending three hours trying to explain punctuated equilibrium to you, when a book can do it much better with much higher accuracy. I don't know everything, just a lot about the topic, and I don't have all day to explain it.
And of course, it's not a law. Laws must be able to be mathematically proven (Or just about). You can't mathematically prove evolution yet, and we may never be able to.
As far as punctuated equilibrium goes, it is simply a very, very reputable theory which has served as one of the defining principles of the modern theory of evolution and explains that after massive extinctions, various niches are opened by the removal of specialized species from their places in the biosphere. This then opens up what can be considered almost an evolutionary free-for-all to fill those niches, resulting in highly advanced evolution seen in the evolution of prominent structures and organism classes such as after the Permian mass-extinction.

[Jeeves]

Hang on, have you two just started up again?
Religous peeps; accept that heretics will burn in hell for looking outside the book.
Science nutz; accept that, although unlikely, the presence of a supreme
being cannot be disproven, only proven. No proof has yet been offered that one does exist, so accept that people will waste their time worshiping a probable non-being, and don't waste your own time stressing about it.
Now kiss and make up

[Hostile]

If I thought anything Spance was saying is total BS, I'd simply ignore it. But I don't. I respect his points of view. I understand his basic reply as mass extinctions allow genetic uncontested diversity.

But that actual act of an organism changing is only done through selective breeding or mutations. So it really doesn't answer the question how but more why but I will go and study more on this idea and see what I come up with.

punctuated equilibrium