Good point, I confess I don't try to post coherent all the time and I often post jibberish and swing over to preachy. There is no offense at all... I like the Rockets or I wouldn't waste so much time here... I love to spout off in D&D... I only get serious when I ask someone to email me. I just can't stand trying to deal with serious issues on a BBS.... It's like a sitcom and then there is real life. If you knew me you would find me dull, old, and uninteresting unless you asked for help or liked to surf or play guitar. If I was having lunch with you or visiting then I would speak coherent, and represent my own faith more appropriately. I once thought I would try to take the board more serious and post things, but I don't have the time. Madmax is much better at expressing Christian ideas, I just tend to be hanging out. I am either addicted or having some fun, not sure which.
I’m too far behind on this thread, but I’ll just catch up on a couple of posts. This is a very simple organism, however, and I believe it took about 30,000 generations for this particular change to occur. For organisms that live longer the time line would be much longer. 30,000 generations for humans, for example, assuming that a generation is 25 years, represents about 750,000 years. And although the change we’re talking about here is very significant, it’s also very small. If you’re talking about the evolution of an eye, or a useful limb of some sort, image all the chance mutations you would have to string together to cause that come about.
I certainly agree that from what I know it is very robust from a practical standpoint. We know how light behaves and can engineer all kinds of wonderful things based on what we know about it, but do we really understand why light behaves like a wave and a particle? Perhaps there is an explanation that I’m not up on. Gravity is a good one. It’s a part of every moment of most peoples’ lives, and yet we don’t really understand it very well at all. First, I don’t think we’re talking about creationism here. I think we’re talking about how well the theory of evolution stands up, and perhaps whether it should be considered the one and only plausible theory to explain our origins. I think you are referring to two different kinds of complexity. One is a random coming together of bits of matter and whatever randomly results from that, and the other is very specific arrangements of matter that allows complex and purposeful functions. I realize that we could get very tied up defining these things, but I think that what we call life is something quite different than lifeless matter. We also commonly talk about multi celled organisms being more complex than single celled organisms, for example, but we could probably break this down further if you like. This is interesting stuff, but the fact that there are similarities in the DNA doesn’t necessarily support evolution over other theories. The competing theory I suggested above is that a more advanced species may have “teraformed” earth. If such an advanced spices exists and it has advanced genetic engineering capabilities, then it may well have made sense for their designers to reuse segments of DNA and just alter the bits they needed to alter to produce the different species to fill out the ecosystem. Why start from scratch if you don’t need to? I’m sure this evidence could support other theories as well.
You are missing the point why some people vehemently rejects evolution. The objection is not about its scientific soundness. Even if there is bullet(idiot) proof of its scientific foundation, it still won't be accepted by some folks. So it is a moot to argue if it is scientific. Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion about how the world is shaped, and as long as they don't take it out of high school curriculum, I don't have a problem with that opinion.
Never understood why some people vehemently oppose evolution. Just accept that the word "day" in the bible is ambiguous and never defined in the bible, and Boom, problem goes away. Easy to rationalize with christianity.
It is catching up, one step at a time. As long as I know the doctor operates on me at least learned Evolution, I am Ok.
Science is held accountable, and is constantly challenged and reworked. Evolution is real, to ignore it is silly. DD
If we evolved from prime mates, how come they have 48 strands of DNA and we have only 46? That's millions of lost DNA. That's not evolving. Our bones are much thinner and lighter thinner. That's not evolving. Our skin is not well adapted to direct sun light light. Our isn't. Our hair and finger/toe nails continue to grow and has to be trimmed. That isn't an issue for prime mates. That's not evolving. Our body is programmed to have over 4,000 genetic disorders. They have very few. That's not evolving. Mind bottling, huh?
Of course evolution is real... as in "survival of the fittest." Where the evolutionary theory gets in trouble is by making too many unsubstantiated claims. It requires greats leaps to conclusions and displays a shocking lack of evidence... offering instead conjecture.
Evolution in and of itself has no agenda or purpose, there is no intent to build a better animal. The changes just happen, in millions of tiny ways and a few disruptive ways. Some changes produce new biological strengths and some don't. It could be that the hominids that tended toward bigger brains just had weaker bones and less hair, by chance or not. And don't forget the changes don't happen in a vacuum, all the other plants and animals are changing, changing the biologic relationships. And the environment is always changing too, in the micro and macro sense. It's a giant mixmaster of throwing **** against the wall and having some of it stick.
No purpose? It's survival of the fittest. Every other species has evolved into bigger, stronger..yada, yada. Homo Sapiens didn't evolve. We just kinda showed up one day to the party. There's a reason the missing link hasn't been found.
That's not an argument though. Yes, we dont have a full grasp of evolution and yes its easy to point holes in the theory. However, there is ZERO evidence to the contrary. If you are going to make a scientific argument to cast doubt on evolution then make a scientific argument to prove an alternative. Skepticism is not an argument. It's the same (and I dont mean to compare those who doubt evolution in a moral sense) as those who doubt the holocaust. You can find holes in the argument but you can't provide an alternative. The same applies to those who question the story behind 9/11. Until an alternative with evidene is provided, the argument is meaningless. So until anyone provides an alternative with even minimal evidence, I find holes like these irrelevant. We dont have a full grasp of science on evolution so pointing out holes like this means little.
The only SFW thing more stimulating than reading these threads is watching one of the many debate videos available online. Everyone is engaged and thinking. Its the essence of why we do this bbs thing. Actually thats a butterfaced lie. One liners is what Christmas is all about Charlie Brown. Bad ones, good ones, fat ones. Stick em in a stew. I'll just say this. I want ALL of the answers when i die, just in case i dont figure everything out beforehand. If I come to after I die and theres angels and god(s) and pearly gates and eternal life, I will bust the F up. They'll need new angels to make me stop laughing. I don't think we get another life after this one, but I'll have a great sense of humor about it all if I'm wrong. It'd be like the entire universe were set up to prank people.
Let me get this straight. If I commit a crime and there is ZERO evidence that points to me but you're the suspect, that makes me innocent and you guilty, right?
That is sciencetific evidence. I didn't make it up. This no scientific evidence Homo Sapiens evolved.
No its not. You cant prove something with a negative. You have to present evidence defending an alternative hypothesis. The scientific method is in such a way that you present a hypothesis and prove it. You haven't done that, you merely casted doubt on another theory. So until you provide evidence defending another idea, you aren't making an argument. Make an argument using the scientific method, then we can talk.
That's not a theory. It's a scientific fact we have 46 strands of DNA and the other Homo species has 48. It's a fact are bones are lighter and smaller than other Homo species. It's a fact we have over 4,000 genetic disorders and other Homo species have very few. Do some research. Fact is greater than your theory. There is no scientific evidence Homo Sampiens evolved from other Homo species. Losing millions of DNA code isn't considered evolving.
