|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Mar 8, 2009 17:04:38 GMT -5
There have been many arguments over the past two centuries based on Religion V.S Science over the creation of Earth. post your views here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 8, 2009 17:16:12 GMT -5
Well, Science has more evidence... That, and religions change through the years... for all we know, Uranus and Gaea made the Earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakebob on Mar 8, 2009 17:19:52 GMT -5
 That about sums up my post. To get into detail though, I think creationism's a load of bull. Creationism's for people who believe everything was put here for us (including humans) by some benevolent figure who apparently had nothing better to do at the time. Evolution makes more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by spaghetticat on Mar 8, 2009 17:56:08 GMT -5
I'd have to go with creationism. God created science and then science did the rest.
|
|
wizard
Superior Being
{S=0}[M:-593]
50%
Posts: 399
|
Post by wizard on Mar 8, 2009 17:57:56 GMT -5
I EVOLVED OFF A TURTLE! that explains my opinion.when you argue, ill get serious
|
|
|
|
Post by spaghetticat on Mar 8, 2009 18:01:30 GMT -5
Evolution doesn't exist. If it did, the monkies in the zoo would have become humans.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakebob on Mar 8, 2009 18:54:13 GMT -5
Evolution doesn't exist. If it did, the monkies in the zoo would have become humans. It's not like age, you cretin. Evolution is mutations in the gene pool which benefit the species. It doesn't occur over a matter of months or years, it takes place over a vast amount of time, thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. It's mainly to do with adapting so that they can survive within their current climate. That's how things like diseases can become immune to medication over time, they adapt to it. |
|
wizard
Superior Being
{S=0}[M:-593]
50%
Posts: 399
|
Post by wizard on Mar 8, 2009 19:17:10 GMT -5
Evolution doesn't exist. If it did, the monkies in the zoo would have become humans. ok. that is the stupidest thing ive ever heard in my life. dont post about disagreeing with something you dont know. evolution is when changes in birth make differences, and only the good survive. for example, lets say there are three rabbit types in antarctica. one of them is colored blue, one is green, and one is white. the white survives, the green and blue die. thats what evolution is. (is am smart now.) |
|
|
|
Post by spaghetticat on Mar 8, 2009 21:36:01 GMT -5
Evolution doesn't exist. If it did, the monkies in the zoo would have become humans. ok. that is the stupidest thing ive ever heard in my life. dont post about disagreeing with something you dont know. evolution is when changes in birth make differences, and only the good survive. for example, lets say there are three rabbit types in antarctica. one of them is colored blue, one is green, and one is white. the white survives, the green and blue die. thats what evolution is. (is am smart now.) Oh really, I'm stupid? You say I have no proof. There is no proof of evolution but only proof of adaptation. Charles Darwin was a visionary, not a scientist! If we evolved from monkeys that means ALL monkeys would be humans now. |
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 8, 2009 22:15:40 GMT -5
Natural selection is the process of favored organisms surviving within set parameters (their environment and surroundings), and evolution is long term repetition of natural selection.
The reason that evolution takes so long is because it is composed of several natural selection events, which takes place each time there is "an error" while undergoing meiosis and mitosis (I think meiosis): that is to say, each time a genetic mutation takes place. That genetic mutation makes the new organism significantly different from its parent(s). There is the probability that the mutation has no effect on the organism's overall ability to survive (i.e. will not change the organism's relative "fitness"), there is the probability that the mutation will decrease the organism's relative fitness, and there is the probability that the mutation will increase the organism's relative fitness.
Let's use Wizard's snow hare example. Let's assume that there is a population of 1000 (500 male, 500 female) rabbits with gray fur. Let's assume that, come time for reproduction, a new generation of rabbits is created. While the genes are being copied with the aid of ribonucleic acid and deoxyribonucleic acid, some genes that determine the pigment of fur are accidentally overproduced for some next-generation rabbits, some are underproduced for some next-generation rabbits, and others are copied appropriately in the rest of the next-generation rabbits. Let's also assume that for one of the new rabbits a different gene that determined eye pigment amount was overproduced. Let's assume each couple gave birth to 20 rabbits, therefore making a total of 10,000 new rabbits and an overall population of 11,000 rabbits.
When the children are born, 9,800 are born with gray fur and brown eyes, 50 are born with black fur and brown eyes, 50 are born with white fur and brown eyes, 50 are born with grey fur and blue eyes, 25 are born with black fur and blue eyes, and the remaining 25 are born with white fur and blue eyes. In their arctic environment, it is assumed that 50% of a population of grey rabbits will be consumed by predators since some can be see while others cannot so easily be seen, depending where in their bleak environment they are. Black ones will always be seen during day (assuming these rabbits are diurnal) and therefore 100% will be eaten. White ones will never be seen during day and therefore 0% will be eaten. Eye color has no affect on whether a rabbit will survive or not for our assumptions in this situation.
Of the 1000 gray parents and 9850 gray children (total of 10850 gray population), 5425 will survive predation; from that amount, only the 4925 surviving children will live long enough to reproduce. Of the 75 children with black fur (total of 75 black population), 0 will survive predation long enough to reproduce. Of the 75 children with white fur (total of 75 white population), 75 will survive predation to reproduce. The total surviving population is 4925+0+75=5000.
When these rabbits reproduce, then (assuming there are no further mutations) grey and white children will continue to exist. The black ones rely on mutations from existing grey and white generations to exist. As the grey and white children live and reproduce, the grey population will multiply by tens (20 children made for every couple - 10 children eaten per generation = 10 surviving children) while the white population will multiply by twenties (20 children made for every couple - 0 children eaten per generation = 20 surviving children). The next generation will be composed of 24,620 grey children, 740 white children, and 20 "mixed" children (the leftover grey mating with the leftover white making 20 children, all of whom are assumed to survive).
Eventually, since white snow hares only die from old age, will outnumber the grey snow hares.
Repeat that process over time, and you have natural selection and evolution.
The reason why "monkeys don't evolve at the zoo" is because their life span is too long to observe the effects of a 0.01% (made up amount) chance of gene mutation per generation (one per lifetime by definition). Bacteria, since their life span is only several hours long, can easily reproduce quick enough that there will eventually be about 10,000 to allow for the single mutation to be seen, even when starting out with a single bacterium.
Notice that in the above rabbit example, the gray rabbits continue to exist since their genes are still passed down generation to generation.
Also know that Charles Darwin was a scientist. His idea of evolution was "new," but he did take science courses and get paid to do scientific work. That's why he went to the Galapagos in the first place!
|
|
wizard
Superior Being
{S=0}[M:-593]
50%
Posts: 399
|
Post by wizard on Mar 8, 2009 22:24:55 GMT -5
ok. that is the stupidest thing ive ever heard in my life. dont post about disagreeing with something you dont know. evolution is when changes in birth make differences, and only the good survive. for example, lets say there are three rabbit types in antarctica. one of them is colored blue, one is green, and one is white. the white survives, the green and blue die. thats what evolution is. (is am smart now.) Oh really, I'm stupid? You say I have no proof. There is no proof of evolution but only proof of adaptation. Charles Darwin was a visionary, not a scientist! If we evolved from monkeys that means ALL monkeys would be humans now. *facepalm* MONKIES EXIST BECAUSE THEY HAVENT DIED OUT YET!, NO, THEY DO NOT "MAGICALLY" TURN TO HUMANS< AFTER GENERATIONS OF SMALL CHANGE TO SMALL CHANGE, MONKEYS TURNED MORE HUMANISTIC! THE MONKEYS STILL EXIST BECAUSE THEY CONTINUE TO BREED, AND THEIR OFFSPRING CAN BREED TO! AND WHO THE **** ARE YOU CALLING A VISIONIST? THEY COULD EASILY MAKE UP EVERYTHING, WHILE CHARLES DARWIN HAS PLNTY OF EVIDENCE! rant over. i am a lower version of sandmaster now! YAY!!!! also, they evolve due to trial and error |
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 8, 2009 22:27:39 GMT -5
As my above post explains...
Anyone who has not done so, read ALL of my post in reply #9 before saying ANYTHING about evolution and natural selection. There is a reason why I posted, and it wasn't to increase the amount of posts I have, nor was it because I had nothing better to do...
I don't give a care if you think it's too long, please read all of it!
This applies to both pro and con, but especially con..
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaghetticat on Mar 8, 2009 23:01:06 GMT -5
I realize that adaptation (Evolution is false) takes long periods of time. But the theory of natural selection is garbage! Nature cannot set paramatera for itself unless it is a superior being in itself. In all nature may live, but as "Nature" it is dead. If natural selection were true God would control selection not nature. Also, your gray rabbit example proves absolutely nothing BSP.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 8, 2009 23:07:22 GMT -5
Actually, he had green/white/blue while I did grey/black/white...
And who said God had to control every single aspect? Why not the "create a clock and let it run on its own" possibility? Can we ever be sure of either your or my principle?
Natural selection would more appropriately be "adaptation after mutation," in that mutated organisms have to adapt to their surroundings. It is considered "natural selection" because of the probability involved in whether something will mutate or not...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Mar 9, 2009 2:52:52 GMT -5
SC, of course evolution happened, and not ALL monkeys had to humanise (is that a word?...)
Why would God focus on Earth then? Why did he create Earth and THEN the rest of the universe? What is so special about are sodding speacies, and this sodding planet?
I could easily say 'Creationism is a load of garbage' for not having any real evidence while we can dig up the bones and do tests on the fossils and bones of stuff. Everything adapted to it's sorroundings, thats how we cam into being by evolving from the apes
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Mar 9, 2009 6:48:16 GMT -5
All I know is that, if there is a God, he didn't just put dowb a bunch of trees and animals and call it a planet. He didn't put Adam/Eve down either.
Evolutionism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 9, 2009 9:23:51 GMT -5
Yup, I personally believe evolution as well.
We have as much evidence of creationism as we have of Gaea and Uranus making the Earth, and Zeus killing them.
|
|
|
|
Post by SM on Mar 9, 2009 14:46:10 GMT -5
Evolution doesn't exist. If it did, the monkies in the zoo would have become humans. Not really. First of all, zoos haven't existed for millions of years. Second of all, it's completely statistical that they would become human based mainly on their environment. Third of all, reproduction is not regarded highly among zookeepers. So your point has no proof, and evolution, which does have proof, is still valid. Oh yeah, they DID see evolution with E. Coli, after 20 years they were able to evolve to digest citric acid! |
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 9, 2009 16:27:17 GMT -5
The reason why "monkeys don't evolve at the zoo" is because their life span is too long to observe the effects of a 0.01% (made up amount) chance of gene mutation per generation (one per lifetime by definition). Bacteria, since their life span is only several hours long, can easily reproduce quick enough that there will eventually be about 10,000 to allow for the single mutation to be seen, even when starting out with a single bacterium. Exactly... |
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Mar 9, 2009 16:29:27 GMT -5
You won't see monkeys evolving into humans either. Possibly something else.
|
|
[img src="http://i41.[tinypic].com/2crmzjb.jpg"][img src="http://i43.[tinypic].com/2i88x2s.png"][img src="http://i28.[tinypic].com/67r1mw.jpg"]
[M:7000]
