Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Lecture Time: Evolution

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
darkSIDEofMOON View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 2 - Language/Disrespect 9/13

Joined: 02 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 162
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darkSIDEofMOON Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 August 2006 at 1:46pm
Originally posted by Shadowminion Shadowminion wrote:

Darkside of the moon , you said

could there be a god that created life and let it evolve?  yes
could there be a god that created us and put all the other stuff to confuse and test us?  yes
could everything be explained by science and there is no god?  yes

I cant disagree with that , but its just as likely on your third point that everything could be explained by science and there exists a "God", thats what I was trying to illustrate . The two theories do not rule out the possibility ofthe other being a valid truth , that is ,if and when our science becomes advanced enough to understand what we cant in today's world .



i understand what you are getting at and that is why i put the last point, we must make descisions for ourselves.  i personally think that there is no God and one day, we might answer all the questions...not in this life time or the next, but maybe, in another 100 years or so. 

but then again, this gets off of the point of what clark was trying to get out.  he wasn't creating a post to go against god fearing people, merely to tell them what evolution is and how the science works...even in a basic understanding.
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2006 at 11:54am
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Originally posted by Rico's Revenge Rico's Revenge wrote:


Good grief guys, get jobs or lives or something!


Adaptation/mutation is in no way evolution as pertains to the origin of species... not at all.


Btw, it does suck being apparently the only half-informed non-evolutionist here.   Apparently the secular, left-wing, liberal school systems are doing their brainwash jobs well.


Adaptation or mutation does not change the genus of the subject.   If you breed a Hereford, Shorthorn and Brahman cattle you don't get a lizard, you get a Beefmaster which, omg, is a cow.   The basic DNA patterns are the same.


In Virilogy, a virus adapts to become what?   Another virus, not a chicken.


Adaptation is readily accepted because you can see a change, like the example of the black vs. white butterflies given earlier.   Neither the butterfly, cows or viruses have evolved into anything other than what they are.


It has long been "suggested" that adaptation, mutation and breeding have been evidence of evolution, unfortunately, until there is lab proof of a change in basic DNA make up, this is not the case.



It is true you are quite informed. However, you still fail to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that points against Creationism (but not always in the direction of evolution). Allowing for some gaps in the theory is easy simply because it is truly impossible to solve this question without a doubt. However, simply relying on faith has without a doubt filled no gaps nor put a wrench in this theory.



are we talking old earth or young earth here? which theory, specifically, i could think of quite a few. (note, old earth does not necessitate God-guided or God-allowed evolution)

you can't really much prove whether there was a supernatural being in charge of the beginning of the universe or not. even if you could prove a supernatural being existed it would not prove it, even if you could prove that at this point in time there is no living supernatural being it still would not disprove it.

the only two ways you can combat it, is based on how long ago the person believes the earth was created, and if they believe that God created man fully formed as man rather then him coming from a less sophiscticated life form

the two aren't mutually exclusive. i don't happen to believe that we evolved, but i also don't happen to believe the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old.

ok clark, question time :)

i'm quite positive you'll give an answer any good evolutionist would find acceptable, but i'll be quite suprised if you can give me one that makes logical sense to me.

What of the Gaps in the fossil record, i know this question is widely dismissed, but it seems to me *logically* that going backwards we would have an inverse triangle, having more recent intermediate forms being found in much greater numbers and as you go back it gradually tapering off.

but that doesn't tend to be the case.. of finds which haven't later been proven wrong, we only tend to find fossils which are relatively quite far apart, the logical conclusion *i* draw from this is that what we are finding are extinct species rather then intermediate forms, what contrasting conclusion would you offer?
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2006 at 3:01pm

Excellent post, junky - I will unfortunately have to ask for a clarification, as I think I missed your question.

First off - "gap" may be a misleading term.  While millions of fossils have been found, nobody claims that these fossils represent anywhere close to all life that has existed on the planet.

More aptly, we should focus on the fossils we have, since they are clearly outnumbered by the fossils we don't have.

And the "gaps" are not widely dismissed - they are accepted as an unfortunate reality.  People are working hard to fill those gaps.  When I say that pointing out gaps is itself not a powerful criticism of evolutionary theory, I say that not because the gaps aren't important, but because evolutionary theory does not rest on paleontology alone.  If all we had were the fossil record, I would also be skeptical about evolution.  As it turns out, paleontology and fossils are only one piece of the puzzle.

Second - "intermediate form" is also somewhat of a misleading term.  Evolution is smooth and gradual.  All fossils are both intermediate and not intermediate.  Homo Sapiens is an intermediate form, yet we are our own species.

The term "intermediate" only has meaning as a convenient term describing a particular fossil we are looking for.  Example:  Birds and reptiles had a common ancestor.  As a result, we would expect to find an "intermediate form" at some point, showing features of both bird and reptile.  But that term (intermediate) only makes sense by our own predefinition.  "Intermediate" or "transitional" are convenient labels used frequently, but they have no independent meaning.  Everything is an intermediate form.

Which leads me back to your question - and I must admit that I am not exactly sure what you mean.  We have millions of fossils.  Some are close together, others are far apart.  Mostly they are clumped, since we tend to find a bunch of fossils together.  So we have pockets where we have a good record, and other pockets where we have very little or nothing at all.  I am not aware of any particular issue with odd groupings of fossils.

As to extinction vs. intermediate - certainly many of the fossils we find are from extinct species that are not an ancestor of any current species.  Absolutely.  Neanderthals are the easy example.  A relative of Homo Sapiens, but kind of like the cousin that died childless.  The same is true for dinosaurs, birds, insects, etc. - species go extinct all the time.  It would be shocking indeed if we only found fossils from creatures that have living decendants.

But these are all random thoughts inspired by your post, and I don't think I have answered your question.  So - could you elaborate?  Perhaps provide specifics, or description of what types of finds or fossils you are thinking of? 

 

Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2006 at 10:53pm
by widely dismissed, what i meant was indeed, widely dismissed as not a strongly effective evidence against evolution

on intermediate forms - semantics, while you are correct, it really isn't of any significance, i merely picked the term because it was one that people would identify with what i was attempting to convey...

as for what i mean by gap - i'll use the human series for an example, merely because its one of the easiest to find documentation on.

(all information taken from talkorigins.org)

if we go back to the oldest supposed ansestor of the hominid series (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) we can see that there have been several finds with fossils of this species

Sahelanthropus tchadensis - 1 find, dated 6-7 million years old

Ardipithecus ramidus - 1 find, dated 4.4 million years

Australopithecus anamensis - 3 finds, dated 4 to 4.1 million years old

Australopithecus afarensis - 5 finds, dated 3.2 to 3.7 million years ago

Kenyanthropus platyops - 1 find, dated 3.5 million years ago

Australopithecus africanus - 4 finds, dated 2.5 million years ago (though in fairness information on one find was vague enough to say "between 2 and 3 million")

Australopithecus garhi - 1 find, dated 2.5 million years ago

Australopithecus - 1 find, dated 3.3 million years ago

Australopithecus aethiopicus - 1 find, dated 2.5 million years ago.

Australopithecus robustus - 3 finds, dated 1.5 to 2 million years ago

- And so on and so forth -

My first exception - as i said in that last post, is that there should be an inverse triangle, with species that were older being found less and species that were younger being found more - but if you look at it that almost seems to be the opposite - the one with the most finds was the third oldest, dated 2 to 2.5 million years older then the newest species, yet in a span that long we don't find that fossils of species are being found with any more frequency, now granted luck plays a role, which would explain the scattered 1's throughout, but would hardly explain that there seems to be no consistent trend at all.

also note the dates

6-7
4.4
4.1
3.2-3.7
2.5
2

the largest gap from 6 to 4.4, makes sense, however, what does not make sense is that the second and third largest gaps, are the gaps between the 3 youngest sets of species listed.

both of these seem contradictory to what logic would imply they should be, at least, that is how it seems to me



Back to Top
darkSIDEofMOON View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 2 - Language/Disrespect 9/13

Joined: 02 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 162
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darkSIDEofMOON Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 2:21am
Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

by widely dismissed, what i meant was indeed, widely dismissed as not a strongly effective evidence against evolution

on intermediate forms - semantics, while you are correct, it really isn't of any significance, i merely picked the term because it was one that people would identify with what i was attempting to convey...

as for what i mean by gap - i'll use the human series for an example, merely because its one of the easiest to find documentation on.

(all information taken from talkorigins.org)

if we go back to the oldest supposed ansestor of the hominid series (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) we can see that there have been several finds with fossils of this species

Sahelanthropus tchadensis - 1 find, dated 6-7 million years old

Ardipithecus ramidus - 1 find, dated 4.4 million years

Australopithecus anamensis - 3 finds, dated 4 to 4.1 million years old

Australopithecus afarensis - 5 finds, dated 3.2 to 3.7 million years ago

Kenyanthropus platyops - 1 find, dated 3.5 million years ago

Australopithecus africanus - 4 finds, dated 2.5 million years ago (though in fairness information on one find was vague enough to say "between 2 and 3 million")

Australopithecus garhi - 1 find, dated 2.5 million years ago

Australopithecus - 1 find, dated 3.3 million years ago

Australopithecus aethiopicus - 1 find, dated 2.5 million years ago.

Australopithecus robustus - 3 finds, dated 1.5 to 2 million years ago

- And so on and so forth -

My first exception - as i said in that last post, is that there should be an inverse triangle, with species that were older being found less and species that were younger being found more - but if you look at it that almost seems to be the opposite - the one with the most finds was the third oldest, dated 2 to 2.5 million years older then the newest species, yet in a span that long we don't find that fossils of species are being found with any more frequency, now granted luck plays a role, which would explain the scattered 1's throughout, but would hardly explain that there seems to be no consistent trend at all.

also note the dates

6-7
4.4
4.1
3.2-3.7
2.5
2

the largest gap from 6 to 4.4, makes sense, however, what does not make sense is that the second and third largest gaps, are the gaps between the 3 youngest sets of species listed.

both of these seem contradictory to what logic would imply they should be, at least, that is how it seems to me





well there are many possabilities that could be used. 

-  one for instance is the area that these fossils are collected.  you have to remember that a baby living in these times had a very rare chance of survival. so the area that they live in could be huge and the actual number small. 

-  another is the speices.  some lived very well while others tended to be on the fringes of survival.  maybe they only had 1 child for every 3 women because just taking care of that one child used huge amounts of resources. 

-  just the numbers you are stating.  the number of fossils found isn't significant enough to say that we are finding more of one than the other.  now, if we found 50K of one and only 2 of another, then that would be a significant difference.  but only of difference of 1 or 3 isn't much to say that we are finding MORE than another.  maybe the scientist just got lucky.

-  enviroment is another huge problem.  most animals live near water sources because life depends on it.  now with changes in climate over millions of years rivers move, oceans rise, land slides, volanoes, etc.  all disrupte the area and destroy to fossils that could be found. 

-  more recently.  human destruction.  some places are ground up and the bones are never noticed. 

but in all, there are hundreds of variables that could explain why the numbers you stated are small.  the earth is big and constantly changes.  yet the numbers are not big enough to be significant to say that we are finding more of A than B.
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 5:25am
Quote well there are many possabilities that could be used.  -  one for instance is the area that these fossils are collected.  you have to remember that a baby living in these times had a very rare chance of survival. so the area that they live in could be huge and the actual number small.

 
i'm not quite sure exactly how this point is applicable to anything i said.

Quote
-  another is the speices.  some lived very well while others tended to be on the fringes of survival.  maybe they only had 1 child for every 3 women because just taking care of that one child used huge amounts of resources.  -  just the numbers you are stating.  the number of fossils found isn't significant enough to say that we are finding more of one than the other.  now, if we found 50K of one and only 2 of another, then that would be a significant difference.


which brings up yet another point - the sheer number of fossils we AREN'T finding. 7 million years worth of fossils is a rediculously large number to be finding as few as we are.

but when you follow the logical progresion of natural selection species would be growing more capable of dealing with thier environments, and also through migration would most likely find more hospitable environments and as a trend would tend to multiply rather then as a trend, decline. and also the longer a fossil has been around the more likely it is for some outside influence to have destroyed it, or for it to have been buried deeper. kinda like how you see all kinds of new coins in circulation, but ones from 100 years ago are rather rare.

Quote

  but only of difference of 1 or 3 isn't much to say that we are finding MORE than another.  maybe the scientist just got lucky.-


luck is certainly a factor, but you seem to be missing my point - what i'm saying is that there is no significant difference and that there should be.

Quote
enviroment is another huge problem.  most animals live near water sources because life depends on it.  now with changes in climate over millions of years rivers move, oceans rise, land slides, volanoes, etc.  all disrupte the area and destroy to fossils that could be found.  -  more recently.  human destruction.  some places are ground up and the bones are never noticed.  but in all, there are hundreds of variables that could explain why the numbers you stated are small.  the earth is big and constantly changes.  yet the numbers are not big enough to be significant to say that we are finding more of A than B.


once agian, your not really combatting what i'm saying, in fact, your almost supporting my point.
Back to Top
Hitman View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Why yes, I am JUST THAT cool, thx...

Joined: 14 January 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Status: Offline
Points: 5123
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hitman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 5:45am
Who made god and how long was he alive before he decided to create us? Surely he must be into voyeurism.
[IMG]http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4874/stellatn8.jpg">

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 12:14pm

First off, +25 internets to junky for using talkorigins.  Best evolution resource site on the internet.  Everybody should read.

But, ok - I think I get the question now.  In short, we should be finding fossils from more recent species/creatures than from older ones.  The available data (as you present) appear to indicate the opposite.

I am not a paleontologist, and am unable to give a very specific answer in terms of specific fossils, but I do have some observations based on stuff I do know something about:

First, your data does not support any conclusion at all in terms of the shape of the distribution curve.  Simply as a matter of statistical analysis you don't have enough data points for that type of conclusion.  That is just a matter of mathematics.  Darkside hinted at this, but this true simply as matter of applying standard stats procedure.  As an aside to this, a very large majority of the existing fossils have been excavated in North America and Europe.  As the rest of the world is searched we will presumably learn more (digs in China are already yielding great results).

On a side note, you point out in response to darkside that this highlights the shortage of fossils.  That is both true and false.  We have many many fossils, and each one is a wealth of information.  For purposes of making a time distribution calculation each fossil is a single point - the same is not true for purposes of learning anatomy from the fossils.  The same data can be short for one purpose and plenty for another purpose.

Second, even if there were enough data to conclude that there are more old fossils than new, that would not be sufficient to reach a conclusion as to cause.  There are numerous confounding variables that would have to be ruled out.  Fossils aren't random.  That is, the generation of fossils isn't random.  Creatures living on land are less likely to fossilize than creatures in the sea.  Creatures in the forest are less likely to fossilize than creatures in the desert.  Small/fragile creatures are less likely to fossilize than big/strong creatures.  Et cetera. 

And then there are the geological issues - if I had a major concentration and/or gap in fossil discovery, my first action would be to look for evidence of major geological activity during the relevant period.  Geological activity of a variety of kinds can create/destroy and hide/reveal fossils.

And lastly, you state as a baseline assumption that one should expect to find more recent fossils than older fossils.  I don't believe you can make that assumption.

Yes, as a strictly statistical degradation, if 0.01% of all fossils are destroyed each year, then you would expect to find more recent fossils than old, IF we assume that the same number of each were initially created, and IF we assume that the rate of destruction is consistent across all ages.  I don't believe we can make either of those assumptions.

In short:  We don't have enough data to make a statistical observation about fossil timelines.  Even if we did, we would have to consider a variety of variables before making any conclusions as to cause, and before assuming a linear degradation curve.

Back to Top
Apotheosis View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 695
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Apotheosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 2:13pm
Clark, you are probably the most informed 16 year old lesbian that I know.
Back to Top
darkSIDEofMOON View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 2 - Language/Disrespect 9/13

Joined: 02 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 162
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darkSIDEofMOON Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 4:15pm
Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

Quote well there are many possabilities that could be used.  -  one for instance is the area that these fossils are collected.  you have to remember that a baby living in these times had a very rare chance of survival. so the area that they live in could be huge and the actual number small.

 
i'm not quite sure exactly how this point is applicable to anything i said.

well basically i was trying to say that the number of babies born was much smaller in the past than in the present which leads to less fossils being found.  and also the fact that it was until the last 100,000 years, maybe less, that "people" started to burry their dead.  which again leads the remains to be destroyed by other animals and natural processes.

Quote
-  another is the speices.  some lived very well while others tended to be on the fringes of survival.  maybe they only had 1 child for every 3 women because just taking care of that one child used huge amounts of resources.  -  just the numbers you are stating.  the number of fossils found isn't significant enough to say that we are finding more of one than the other.  now, if we found 50K of one and only 2 of another, then that would be a significant difference.


which brings up yet another point - the sheer number of fossils we AREN'T finding. 7 million years worth of fossils is a rediculously large number to be finding as few as we are.

not really, because you are thinking in today's time.  back then, they estimated that there would be about 1-maybe 2 million of one particular species.  spread out over a huge amount of land, that is nearly impossible for all the scientists in the world working in the field to search.  plus climate change has shifted many of the areas that these "people" use to live in.

but when you follow the logical progresion of natural selection species would be growing more capable of dealing with thier environments, and also through migration would most likely find more hospitable environments and as a trend would tend to multiply rather then as a trend, decline. and also the longer a fossil has been around the more likely it is for some outside influence to have destroyed it, or for it to have been buried deeper. kinda like how you see all kinds of new coins in circulation, but ones from 100 years ago are rather rare.

well again it depends.  animals grow to a size that is right for their area.  if they grow too large then their isn't enough food, so many starve and die off.  and over long periods of time they specialize into one form or another, which gives rise to the problem of major global changes. 

and the coin thing, it is hard to compare natural selection through human destruction.  we choose to destroy those coins, or even keep them.  natural selection does not choose to keep or destroy, just move forward.

Quote

  but only of difference of 1 or 3 isn't much to say that we are finding MORE than another.  maybe the scientist just got lucky.-


luck is certainly a factor, but you seem to be missing my point - what i'm saying is that there is no significant difference and that there should be.

well in all fairness it is rather difficult to say how many have they have found of each speicies.  i don't really have the numbers as it is not my field of study when i was in college. 

Quote
enviroment is another huge problem.  most animals live near water sources because life depends on it.  now with changes in climate over millions of years rivers move, oceans rise, land slides, volanoes, etc.  all disrupte the area and destroy to fossils that could be found.  -  more recently.  human destruction.  some places are ground up and the bones are never noticed.  but in all, there are hundreds of variables that could explain why the numbers you stated are small.  the earth is big and constantly changes.  yet the numbers are not big enough to be significant to say that we are finding more of A than B.


once agian, your not really combatting what i'm saying, in fact, your almost supporting my point.

well i am not sure exactly what i am supporting.  you asked why they haven't found 1 million fossils of each species and i was trying to answer a reason why they haven't.  again remember, burrying a "person" who just died is realitivel a new thing.  before that they just left them there, or maybe even ate them. 


BTW *****  when i say "people" or "person" i ment a speices related to homosapiens, since i don't know the exact names of the earlier speices i just clumped them together.
Back to Top
DeTrevni View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
b-YOU-ick. Was that so hard?

Joined: 19 September 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 11763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeTrevni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 4:24pm

This thread = tl;dr

What's going on?

Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"

Back to Top
Salem View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 October 2003
Location: Djibouti
Status: Offline
Points: 1903
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Salem Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 4:33pm

Im going to go ahead and apologize in advance if this post has already been dealt with before now. Ive just started reading and am still on the second page, I just couldnt let this one go.

    

 

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

for some "Big Bang" to happen there actually has to be somthing to cause it... If that matter was already there, where did it come from? and about those "missing links" how do you know those where actuall missing links, maybe it was just some wierd-ass animal that is kinda like some of the animals we have now.

1.Evolution has'nt been proven at all. We have never seen anything evolve and we have no evidence of anything ever evolving

Wrong, completely and utterly wrong from start to finish, evolution my friend, is a proven fact, evolution is constant and on going. its the scale of evolution that is in question. I myself dont belive that my origins can be traced back through primates and eventually fish and all those other sub human creatures.

     Evolution is basicallyany change in a species overtime. Lets say all the animals that live in an area are giraffes. and all they eat are fruits that are high in trees. as that population became crowded and food became sparser, only the tallest of the animals would be ab le to reach the highest fruit and survive. thus the shorter ones of the species would die off leaving the tallest ones to pass on their genetics. Over time that species would get steadily taller. Thus evolution. This is true and applied to every species (except humans) on the planet.
2.the only "missing links" that have ever been found where either dissproven or shown to be complete hoaxes.
3.Evolution goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics

untrue again. This statement is twisted and commonly used by those who are semi educated about the subject. The 2nd law is primarily meant to deal with compounds and atoms on a molecular level. Its no longer relevant once the most basic creatures have been formed.

I also find this rather interesting... http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/creation/chances.htm

P.S. keep in mind i dont agree with either theories of evolution or creation they're both rediculous ideas

 

Id like to say also that Im not for the theory of macroevolution. Its just I hate these halfformed defenses christians have against evol;ution


Back to Top
Salem View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 October 2003
Location: Djibouti
Status: Offline
Points: 1903
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Salem Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 4:37pm

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Sorry, breifly skimmed through the thread, but given the odds of 1/10^160000 that proteins were created by chance how can evolution be feasible?

Dont get me wrong, I dont beleive we were just created, I beleive in evolution, except I think something gave it a little nudge.

true those odds are next to insane but one mathmatical theory Ive read says basically that no matter what the odds are, if the conditions are right and given an infinite amount of time it will occur at least once. Once again I dont belive it hapened this way. I just like forcing people to think. Just food for thought


Back to Top
Salem View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 October 2003
Location: Djibouti
Status: Offline
Points: 1903
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Salem Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 4:54pm
And as usual. I am kasey, slayer of threads. I offically declare this thread dead, no longer shall it be posted in. Ramen!

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 4:56pm

Salem -

That isn't theory, but mathematical fact.  Half-assed proof by me a couple of pages back.   Given enough trials, every possible event, no matter how unlikely, WILL occur.  Guaranteed.

I also note your statement above about how you "aren't for macro-evolution".  Care to elaborate?

Back to Top
darkSIDEofMOON View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 2 - Language/Disrespect 9/13

Joined: 02 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 162
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darkSIDEofMOON Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 11:06pm
Originally posted by Salem Salem wrote:

And as usual. I am kasey, slayer of threads. I offically declare this thread dead, no longer shall it be posted in. Ramen!


lol, you are right...
Back to Top
eliminator View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Drinks from the Toilet

Joined: 18 June 2005
Location: Neutral Zone
Status: Offline
Points: 667
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eliminator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2006 at 11:11pm
I believe that we all started from a one cell organism and evolved, its the only resonal answer that I can conclude form my hours of pondering. And I don't belive that we came form 2 kind of animals mating I just think we evolved faster than other species, like we are a sepcices apes... PEACE
__||__
[        }------ =() =()
//'   ||
R THOSE MY BALLS ON UR FACE
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2006 at 2:19am
Which pretty much leaves me where i started - it makes no sense to me that over the span of 4.5-5.5 million years there would be no significant trend and not enough data for annalysis. outside influences can mess with results, but the larger the sampling the less likely those influences would cause a result such as the one in question, and with a sampling so large it just doesn't make logical sense to me.

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Salem -


That isn't theory, but mathematical fact.  Half-assed proof by me a couple of pages back.   Given enough trials, every possible event, no matter how unlikely, WILL occur.  Guaranteed.


I also note your statement above about how you "aren't for macro-evolution".  Care to elaborate?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem :)

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2006 at 11:05am

Thanks, junky - better proof than mine.

(note that "almost certain" in mathematical terms means "guaranteed" - it's like the turtle/hare theorem.  Theoretically the hare never catches up, yet we can calculate exactly when the hare actually catches up)

Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2006 at 11:50am
That Infinite Monkeys wiki was great. Thanks Junky.

Really enjoying this thread. Keep it up folks!
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.