Author Topic: How many here believe in evolution? (Read 13468 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #510 on:** July 07, 2003, 03:22:43 PM »

"ok Thrawn, using science, prove evolution to me. Your belief in science does not make it so either. People gonna believe whatever they want to believe. Simple as that"

I'm not Thrawn - thank god - but I'll answer your question!

Ever hear of how bacteria become resitant to a certain antibotic over time?

Well that's proof of evolution. You see whichever individuals in the overall bacterial pupluation the antibiotic which is basically acting as a selective agent, does not kill because those bacteria are able to withstand it alltogether or are generally more resitant (takes higher dose of drug to kill em) go on to replicate themselves (bacteria dont breed they multiply individually) - because they are only survivors - and so through basic genetics they pass on their resistant genes to the the next generation and so the new "baby" bacteria are now on average more resitant to that particular antibiotic and so the overall population of bacteria has increased resitance and so the population has evolved.

Here is a simple timeline.

1) Population of Bacteria living happily and reproducing - a few individuals are more highly resitant to some antibiotics through various chance genetic mutations.

2) Antibiotic is introduced into environment killing most bacteria - but some of the more resitant survive.

3) Survivors, who are resitant to antibiotic through cnace genetic mutation, replicate themselves and pass on resitant genetic traits to next generation.

4) New population on the whole has on average higher resitance to the particular antibiotic. The bacterial poulation has evolved.

Thats all there is to it.

Sabre · « **Reply #511 on:** July 07, 2003, 03:39:44 PM »

Grunz, what you descibe is refered to as micro-evolution which, as I pointed out is readily accepted by pretty much everyone. It does not prove how the bacteria can evolve into a multicelled organism. Micro-evolution, a.k.a. speciation, does not result in a more complex life-form.

A basic problem with this whole debate is that most people on both sides of the debate are operating on faith. Yes, faith! Many if not most that accept evolution in it's entirety do so because they where were taught that it is fact. Seldom if ever do the classroom discussions focus on, let alone mention, the inherent holes in evolutionary theory. Likewise, those who believe our existance is better explained by intelligent design seldom question their own belief...it's what they were taught, so they believe it. I fell into this catagory not long ago, and sought to educate myself. I picked up literature on both sides of the argument, looked at the evidence for and against evolution, and decided for myself. I challenge you all to do the same.

GrimCO · « **Reply #512 on:** July 07, 2003, 03:39:47 PM »

I believe the Big Bang Theory to be a correct assessment of the creation of the Universe. The COBE satellite and it's findings dealing with microwave background radiation pretty much put the nail in the coffin of any other theories relating to the creation of the Universe. The ultimate fate of the Universe remains open to speculation and entertains many possible theories.

As far as evolution is concerned, I do believe that adaptation and mutation occurs within species, as well as survival of the fittest. This is the micro-evolution which Sabre pointed out.

Did we evolve from apes? Possibly.

However, I do feel that the human species was in some way predetermined to evolve to be dominant. The fact that we ask the very question "why are we here" as opposed to other animals makes us completely different.

As I said before, I believe in the Big Bang theory. I also believe that "something" lit the fuse. Some choose to call it God. Being scientifically minded, I shy away from using the word "God". However, I still feel that some sort of supernatural entity or power intentionally initiated the Big Bang.

In my efforts to disprove the existance of a "God", I found myself believing that something had to start this whole mess intentionally. To the religious folks out there, call it what you may. I prefer to think of "it" as some sort of power or entity.

"I think, therefore I am" pretty much sums it up for me.

Sabre · « **Reply #513 on:** July 07, 2003, 03:41:14 PM »

Nicely put, GrimCO.

midnight Target · « **Reply #514 on:** July 07, 2003, 03:42:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sabre
So much for trying to spark intelligent debate. Just for grins, let's try one more time. We'll start with a definition. Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years. A more precise breakdown of this statement divides the "atoms to people" transition into four realms:

1. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the universe (the "Big Bang" theory fits under this heading).

2. Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms from inanimate matter. This part of the theory of evolution is pure speculation, as it has not (despite much effort) been duplicated since it supposedly first happened.

3. Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species change through time. There are many published examples of speciation, if by the development of a new "species" we mean the development of a new population of individuals which will not breed with the original population to produce fertile offspring. Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists (the Pope, included), dispute.

4. Macro-evolution or general evolution refers to the progression to more complex forms of life. The mechanisms of macro-evolution, including whether or not micro-evolution over a long enough time leads to macro-evolution, can be regarded as a "research topic" (Berra 1990, 12). This part of the theory of evolution has also never been observed, but only postulized based on fosil records.

Now, which part of the above do you disagree with, and what do you base your disagreement on?

Just for fun I would disagree that there is any difference between item 3 and item 4.

Then I would ask you to come up with a viable explaination for the biodiversity that exists today without using any non-testable theories. (or magical beings)

good luck

Syzygyone · « **Reply #515 on:** July 07, 2003, 03:54:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
biodiversity

I detect a left wing liberal trap here. MT is trolling again!

Frogm4n · « **Reply #516 on:** July 07, 2003, 03:57:57 PM »

they can trace everyone living outside of africas genetics back to one tribe that left africa. humans living in africa have a more diverse set of genetics proving the out of africa theorys. if you belive that god created man some 10k years ago go live with the taliban in a cave moron.

Eagler · « **Reply #517 on:** July 07, 2003, 03:58:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GrimCO
"I think, therefore I am" pretty much sums it up for me.

"This garden universe vibrates complete.
Some we get a sound so sweet.
Vibrations reach on up to become light,
And then thru gamma, out of sight.
Between the eyes and ears there lay,
The sounds of colour and the light of a sigh.
And to hear the sun, what a thing to believe.
But it's all around if we could but perceive.
To know ultra-violet, infra-red and X-rays,
Beauty to find in so many ways.
Two notes of the chord, that's our fluoroscope.
But to reach the chord is our lifes hope.
And to name the chord is important to some.
So they give a word, and the word is OM."

GrimCO · « **Reply #518 on:** July 07, 2003, 03:58:38 PM »

Syzy,

I hope you're not grouping all Democrats into the "left-wing liberal" category. If so, I've got a bone to pick with ya!

midnight Target · « **Reply #519 on:** July 07, 2003, 04:07:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GrimCO
Syzy,

I hope you're not grouping all Democrats into the "left-wing liberal" category. If so, I've got a bone to pick with ya!

Syz is right,

We dems are trying to sign dolphins and Bonobos as we speak, both proven to be a shade more intelligent than Rush Limbaugh........

NEW WORLD ORDER!

Frogm4n · « **Reply #520 on:** July 07, 2003, 04:11:22 PM »

i think we need to leave the bonobos out of this. they have already been persicuted enough.

GrimCO · « **Reply #521 on:** July 07, 2003, 04:13:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
i think we need to leave the bonobos out of this. they have already been persicuted enough.

Sure Frog,

Bonobos are our closest relatives. I have this sudden urge to plop down next to ya and sift through your hair for parasites...

Bonobos my arse...

Sorry, I persecuted them again.

Frogm4n · « **Reply #522 on:** July 07, 2003, 04:15:55 PM »

poor bonobos will never be able to leave the ghetto with people like you grimco.

Sabre · « **Reply #523 on:** July 07, 2003, 04:48:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Just for fun I would disagree that there is any difference between item 3 and item 4.

Then I would ask you to come up with a viable explaination for the biodiversity that exists today without using any non-testable theories. (or magical beings)

good luck

Regarding 3 and 4, I'll have to refer you to your local library then to do some homework. The distinction is widely accepted.

As for giving you a viable explaination for biodiversity, what do you mean by viable? As I haven't seen a testable theory from the evolutionists, I say, "you first." So much of evolutionary theory is non-testable. Where is the experimental proof that you can get a more complex organism from a less complex one? That it is possible to create life from lifelessness?

Also, I didn't say anthing about magic, only that evolutionary theory appears on the evidence to have some gaping holes in it in explaining the origins of life, and the creation of such a diverse set of complex creatures. I offered intelligent design, by some entity that has a more complete knowledge of the universe than mere humans, as an alternative. I beg you to defend your position, rather than attempting to minimalize the opposing view with such emotionally charged rhetoric. Or are you so (and please forgive the harsh word, buy I can think of none other that fits here) arrogant that you believe nothing could be more advanced than humans, that humans are the final and most complex creature your evolutionary theory can create? How can that be, if evolution truly explains how complex creatures evolve (and presumably continue to evolve) from less complex ones?

And Frog, why the "moron" comment? Calling people who don't agree with you names only shows the weakness of your own grasp of the subject. Sorry, but that's how it appears to me. I did not insult you or anyone else on this board, and have tried to attack ideas, not people.

Syzygyone · « **Reply #524 on:** July 07, 2003, 05:01:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GrimCO
Syzy,

I hope you're not grouping all Democrats into the "left-wing liberal" category. If so, I've got a bone to pick with ya!

I didn't say anything about Democrats. But, if the shoe fits.................

and pick your own bone, mine's taken!