• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Does believing in Evolution say a lot about you

Status
Not open for further replies.
perpetualdawn said:
meth: there's nothing about evolution that says things have to change all the time, I don't know why you're so hung up on that as being an argument against evolution. If an organism adapts to an ecological niche, and that niche remains, whether it be 100 years or 100 million years, there is no reason for evolution to occur. Evolution is driven by selection pressure.

Do you understand what selection pressure means?
Click to expand...

Too cute..
And clever of evolution I might add
IS it or is it not your faith that you dont believe a fish needs an change for 400 million of years but a
human can evolve from a primate (common ancestor lol) in hardly anytime at all with respect.
Mega huge changes in short time
no change in 400 million (think about that number for a minute.)
It just dont pass the smell test folks
evolution depends on small change, after change, after change, after change, after change, and so forth and so on
why would this fish not change
evolution says it has no say in the matter.

Night Rico,
Good debating with ya
sorry for embarrassment
Make sure you say your prayers to father time.
 
OK let's put it this way: I think we can both agree that gravity is real. Can we agree that gravity is real, and that it is a force that tends to pull things downward, unless something else is in the way?

If you put a rock on top of a very strong pedestal, it will stay there. If that pedestal stays erect and flat on top for 400 million years, it will continue to hold that rock in place, the rock won't fall. 400 million years later that rock will still be on top of that pedestal, because the pedestal has been preventing the force of gravity from pulling the rock any lower. If, however, the pedestal were tipped after 400 million years plus one day, that rock would slip off and fall down to the next lowest point.

The same thing happens in evolution: evolution is a force which, over generations, causes living organisms to adapt to their environment. If that environment doesn't change, it is like the pedestal holding that rock in place; the living organisms in it have nothing new to adapt to, so they don't adapt to anything new. Evolution is the same as adaptation. If the environment does change, and that change isn't so drastic that the population goes extinct, the organisms in that environment will tend to adapt to those changes. When the environment changes, this is like that pedestal tipping over. It allows the force of evolution to be applied to the populations of organisms, causing them to adapt to the new environment.
 
Meth, you seem somewhat obsessed with this. In my opinion all that does is show that you are insecure in your own faith when you are more worried about discrediting what others believe. You are not changing minds or converting anyone here. Get some rest.
 
I appreciate your time to write a reply, I honestly do.
But that last post made my brain hurt.
Yes, I believe what we call gravity is real I can feel the force. Is evolution a force? I have never heard anyone claim that but you. Thats scary.
It is nothing. Its supposed to be description of randomness. Accidental mutations the DNA code ( never mind how the DNA code got there)
Frankly a loss of information.
Gravity is a force which remains steady throughout the universe. Not like faith of evolution which allows one species rapid change for a while and then allows it to stop for millions of years and
then start again.
The rock is inorganic, bad comparison. I doesnt need anything to survive. It could stay like it is for eons.
I just cant fathom why someone cant see that 400 million of years with no change is ok
but then turn around and accept millions of changes over millions of years at the same time

Which is it. Does evolution tend to go fast or slow to the point of stopping change for million of years.
why was there a explosion of species in the Cambrian layer. Why do they suddenly appear out of no where.
There is no slide of hand here, these are legit questions.
Saying I dont know is more than fair
Just dont say im the idiot cause I dont accept your
I dont know as a fact. Or even plausible considering evidence in totality
 
No evolution isn't a force in the physics sense of forces like gravity, weak nuclear force etc.

It's a shorthand for this process:
Mutations happen at random, and if an organism carrying a mutation succeeds in reproducing, that mutation gets passed on to it offspring (in aesexual reproduction), or has a 50% chance being passed on to it's offspring in sexual reproduction. If that mutation leads to increased chances of reproduction, it will tend to spread through a population's gene pool over many generations. If the mutation decreases the odds of it's carrier being able to reproduce, it will tend to be weaned out of the population. The thing that determines a gene's effect on an organism's ability to reproduce, is the environment that the organism finds itself in. When the environment remains stable, there are no changes to these influences, so mutations can come and go within the population, and at some point there won't be any small-steps mutations that pan out as being particularly beneficial. When that happens you get things like the coelacanth that remain basically unchanged for millions of years.

So I'm using the word "force" to describe that process. It's not really evolution that's the "force", it's the selective pressure.
 
First off sorry for getting caught up in war of words. Not helpful
I appreciate your examples.
Evolution relies on mutations. For example, have you ever seen a baby with a third arm? Its sad.
But that baby didnt evolve third arm, there was a miscopy in its genetic material. A typo if you will, that says build another arm. But these
mutations can only use the information they have. They could say dont build a foot, leaving you with no feet. Sadly which happen. But they 99.99 percent leave you worse off. YES, if some wild circumstance came along where no feet was beneficial, then feet go away.
But if you dont have the 4 bit code to make feet in the first place, you dont get feet. And it is just make believe to think a bone can keep getting mutations that would split into all bones in the feet. Can you see why is hard to swallow?

You have to keep going uphill. Losing info is a set back majority of time, and once that info is gone you would have to somehow mutate it again. This is what I mean by starting and stopping.
Evolutionist cant make up their mind on how we evolved. But want you to believe it is "settled science" Some say we started in ocean ,came on land, then went back to ocean only to come back on land. Does that sound right to you?

What about evolving from dolphins? Aquatic apes? It just silly
The most accepted theory is probably we came from whales. Somehow gaining ability to breathe on land, getting fur and limbs, then deciding to jump back in ocean cause things got tough, then deciding to jump back out that ocean cause things got tough again, then we got our limbs and fur back we lost. just on a simple level it seems ridiculous. Now factor in all the parts in and out that all need mutations too to form. It starts to become overwhelming
 
bit_pattern said:
You've got it arse-backwards - evolution disproves the notion of "living fossils"

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34927/title/The-Falsity-of-Living-Fossils/
Click to expand...

sigh, why dont you back up your opinion instead a drive by copy/paste

We dont have but one live "prehistoric" creature to exam.
ME, you, no-one does. All we have are fossils which appear to be exactly the same in a lot of cases.
I would be willing to bet my life that the two are similar enough to reproduce.
Some living fossils are smaller, but similar enough breeding would be no problem. No new species if they do.
Now it can be your opinion they cant, but either way the changes if any would be so dam minute
they wouldn't explain away millions of years.
 
Last edited:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201200145/full

Here is some evidence showing the "living fossil" coelacanths did evolve from their prehistoric ancestors.

Just because to the layman the two look remarkably similar doesnt mean that those who actually study these creatures cannot find differences.

I also feel the whole dna/protein arguement really is more about the hypothesis of abiogenisis and not evolutionary theory which is far for disagreed upon by scientists working it that field than evolution ever was or will be.

Edit bit_pattern beat me to it Sorry, didnt read his link.
 
Kittycat,
Why does evolution get a pass on abiogenisis?
If it wasnt responsible for the very ever first DNA and the very first protein, then what was?
And when did this "mystery" decide to stop guiding and let evolution take over?
See that's why it is relevant to evolution .
 
=D

Classic.

"Yeah but! DNA!"

Answered.

"Yeah but! Transitional forms!"

Answered.

"Yeah but! Living fossils"

Answered.

"Yeah but, but but.." 8(

Night night, again. <3
 
I didnt say it got a pass, they definitely have some overlap. However, abiogenisis is more about how life actually began from nonliving organic molecules not about the mechanisms that lead to change in already living creatures.
 
Fair enough,
I wont force you to think farther
The theory just picks up somewhere
down the line
Good night
thx for posts everyone
 
methamaniac said:
sigh, why dont you back up your opinion instead a drive by copy/paste
Click to expand...

Because if you're too ignorant to read a link then why would I waste the time trying to explain something to you about which you've clearly made your mind up about already?
 
methamaniac said:
Fair enough,
I wont force you to think farther
The theory just picks up somewhere
down the line
Good night
thx for posts everyone
Click to expand...

I have thought about it. One of the leading theories of abiogenesis is the RNA world hypothesis. It states that RNA may have been the first molecule to act in replication, but further more, it can be shown that RNA can act as an enzyme (the domain of proteins today) catalyzing various biologic reactions including the formation of peptide bonds.
 
http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE
Leading theory?
I seen your post and i bout peed myself....
This is basically a 50 plus year old theory

I hope you weren't counting on this as your saviour.
The more they try explain how RNA formed the more confused they become
You're behind, there going back to a type of panspermia idea now.
which is what Francis Crick--co discoverer of DNA
proposed---Directed pansermia-old
Because he didnt believe it was possible for DNA to form on its on
dont take my word for it look it up

Learning is fun isn't it kiddies

" I once was a tadpole when i begun to begin,
Then I was a tadpole with my tale tucked in,
Then I was a monkey in a banana tree,
And now im a doctor with a PhD."
-anonymous

Ok, I had my midnight snack back to bed.....
 
Last edited:
Panspermia is probably older than the idea of the rna world as ribozymes were not discovered until the 1980s. Yes it is true that Crick and Orgel and a few others hypothesized the idea of RNA as the first molecule of heredity in the sixties but it wasnt until it was discovered that RNA could indeed catalyze reaction that the hypothesis had some merit.

And the idea of panspermia can go back as far as some Greek writers and was formulated scientifically in the mid to late 19th century and early 20th century.

And yes it is true that it has been shown that synthesis of the nucleotides that make up RNA in prebiotic conditions is exceeding difficult. This does not mean that the RNA world hypothesis is incorrect.

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10409230490460765

As I said, abiogenesis is a much more debated subject than evolution.
 
Last edited:
^^^^^
Yeah u probably didnt see it but I already mentioned panspermia was s a greek philosophy in previous post
I'll ask you what I asked Rico-suavo
Do you believe in aliens???

Do-do-do-do-do-do-doooooooo
"Your traveling into another dimension
a deminsion of not only site and sound
but of mind
A journey into a wonderous land whos boundary is
only that of imagination
Next stop the Twilight Zone"
 
So you agree panspermia is an older idea but yet mock the idea of the RNA world which really didnt "take off" until 30 years ago. Did you read the paper I linked. It mentions the idea of panspermia as perhaps a way to overcome some of the difficulties in the formation of RNA but still posits the RNA world is a likely scenario.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top