Which religion are you?

There's no rhyme or reason.

You're asking why a coin, when flipped, comes up tails side up. Random genetic chance.

 

@Pancakechef
The chance of you sitting in front of your computer a few billion years after the big bang occured was pretty small. But it happened...which raises the question of why didn't it happen earlier ?

Your question follows the same logic as the question above. The answer is ...no one knows =/...

You either could predict if it would happen if you had knowledge of everything in the universe or alternativelly it would be impossible to predict because the thing which made it happen has no connection to reality i.e god

 

Okay then so if nobody knows or if it was just random chance, then how can you say it was evolution and natural selection etc if when it comes down to it evolution is just random chance of a species going developing certain adaptations. That would contradict evolution itself saying there is a certain system of three principles or reasons that organisms change and adapt to in my opinion. If you understand what I'm trying to say.

 

Evolution states that the species best adapted to survive in its niche will most likely be the one to stick around. This also holds true for the members of any given species, those most adapted to reproduce will be the most likely ones to do so and will likely pull the average member of their species in the direction of their traits. The inverse also holds true, the species and memebers within a species least adapted to reproduce will likely die off without any or fewer offspring than the average causing the average to move away from their set of traits and eventual elimination as a species or the traits from the species.

Because of sexual recombination of traits as well as random mutations the species (or members of a species) most/least adapted to reproduce is in the hands of chance. Evolution says what is most likely to happen in a given situation however it can't say when it will happen or how long it will take. Another advantage of Evolution is it explains what has already happened very effectively.

If you would like an analogy Evolution is like Newtonian physics, it can tell you what is happening and what will happen on the macro level but on the micro level (a particular species or a couple of members of a species) its glued to random chance because of the nature of quantum mechanics (or in the case of Eveolution Mendelian inheritance and random mutations).

 

That is why I think there is something else alongside evolution that we don't fully understand that, that could possibly explain why these so called "random" choices are made by genetics etc. I think that is my disagreement with it. Science its always changing and new discoveries and theories being made so I'm not gonna say evoultion is %100 accurate when i can personally see some holes in it.

I also don't appericate being called ignorant by a previous poster just because I don't fully agree with a certain theory or topic.

 

I was worried for a second there, thinking it was me. But it wasnt!
*does a little dance*

Although, ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of in this respect. It is not used to insult, but to point out that your stance on such an argument may indeed be caused by your lack of knowledge and understanding (ignorance) on the subject. It is not used to insult, but to point out that there is information you may not understand here, and that basing a counter argument or disagreeing with the topic may not perhaps be wise until such information is understood and learned.

Im ignorant of a lot of things, but it does not connote stupidity unless used in certain contexts. =).

 

The 'random choices', which I don't think is really an accurate description of what actually happens, are made by genetic mutation and variation. It's just like any other genetic trait or characteristic. To give an example, the ability to taste PTC, a bitter substance, is a dominant trait in humans, and would have originally developed as a genetic mutation. If the ability to taste PTC suddenly gave the an evolutionary advantage to those who could, for a simple example, if it were to allow them to taste a new and common poison, then those people would have a much higher chance of going on to produce offspring, and would pass on their superior genetics to them. Given time and a great enough need, the vast, vast majority of all humans would have the ability to taste this substance, and the lack of ability to taste it would have been bred out.

Now obviously humans have evolved to such an extent that genetic inheritance holds little meaning, what with their discoveries in medicine and science, but here's a real-life example. Now anyone who's familiar with Darwin's theory is obviously familiar with Darwin's finches. For those who aren't, they're basically a group of species of finches that have developed fairly radically different beak shapes and sizes in order to be able to find enough food to survive. To put it simply, they'd've mostly evolved from the one, same specie, and over the course of time have evolved into separate species, due to the ones with smaller beaks being able to find different food sources than those with larger beaks and therefore being able to survive alongside them without competing for food, blah, blah, blah.

Anyway, recently, we were given an article in Bio about Darwin's two hundredth birthday and some recent changes observed on the Galapagos Islands, where his finches live. To cut a long story short, climate change had led to a drought, which obviously disrupted the available sources of food for particular species of finch. After a single generation, it was observed that the beaks of the affected species had shrunk by about five percent. To put this in terms of genetic inheritance, the finches with slightly smaller beaks were able to gain access to smaller seeds and other sources of food that the slightly larger beaked finches of the same specie were not able to get. The members of the specie with larger beaks died off, while the smaller beaked members lived on and passed on their smaller beaked genes to their offspring.

As for the evolution of humans, the same applies, though perhaps not to such a great extent. Even since homo erectus, the main adaptations that humans have undergone have been behavioural. It's not so much that we physically evolved to have all the technology and everything that we do now, than we behaviourally adapted to. Again, since homo erectus, we had the means to do almost everything we do now, or in other words we shared almost identical physical forms, what with having the opposable thumb, walking upright, etc, etc. Once they started to evolve behaviourally, by making use of tools and weapons, they were able to gain a huge advantage of their competitors, predators and prey. After that, the making of tools and weapons improved, and they most likely made use of pre-existing shelters, where they were safer, and were able to defend it. After that, if the number of pre-existing shelters was too low, they would have gone about creating their own, crude shelters. Again, given time, their ability to create them would have improved. With these improvements they'd become more dominant over the other species. To survive extreme weather such as rain and the cold they'd've taken refuge in their shelters. After a while, they would have become more resourceful and started wearing pelts to keep themselves warm, most likely also using them to make warmer and more water proof shelters. Throughout this time, their other skills would have still bee developing and refining. If they had not already before, they would have learnt both that there was safety in living in groups and a language, or at least better way to communicate. Being resourceful, they'd've been able to make use of fires, and even have learnt how to make it themselves. Again, everything's developing, tool making skills, shelter making skills, pelt making skills, obviously hunting and gathering skills, communication skills, community skills, fire making skills, etc, and they're still the dominant specie. And from there, it's not hard to the the progression to primitive man. Keep in mind this would have taken place over a couple of million years.

So, yeah. The existence of us humans isn't so much based on genetic evolution than it is on behavioural evolution, and after that it's simply natural progression.

 

the eveolutionists theorys do not make sense at all and they keep changing there theory. there have been many times when eleolutionist have lied to try to prove there theory. hardly anything can be proved you can't prove evelution you can disprove it but then they will change it and then it will be right. Darwin himself said in his book that if any oregen were more complex then it seem then my theory would completly fall apart those aren't his exact words but you get the point. i am a creationist

 

ok, give some examples of evolutionist who lied, and for credibility, give the name of the person who said that lie, and they should have a Masters or Ph.D in thier respected field.

As for the Darwin quote, how does learning that something is more complex rule out a theory.

And ofc it would change when something is found wrong, thats how science works! If there is a flaw in a thoery, they fix it, thats the scientific process at work! If evolution as a whole had been disproved, then scientists wouldn't still be using it.

Personally, evolution makes more sence than the Bible's version. What logic says that a human formed from a lump of clay, and a women was created from his rib? Was the women not considered good enough by God to get her own lump of clay, instead of relying on the man's body for life?

 

The only reason the concept of evolution keeps changing is because people are learning more and more about it. It's the same with almost all sciences. Just look at the history of the atom or bases and you'll see that the views of the past, although they're along the right lines, are still flawed, as they did not have the knowledge or resources to gain a complete understanding of it. The current theories just represent the best views of the time. People do not lie in order to create them, as they've got to be supported by scientific backing. If a theory doesn't hold, then it's not accepted as fact. Again, back to the history of acids, originally they were best defined as substances which contained oxygen, but this was not entirely true, as although non-metallic oxides formed acids in water, metallic oxides formed bases. In short, you're spot on about changing theories once they've been proven wrong. Science wouldn't make sense and wouldn't progress if they didn't change. It's simply logic.

Another mistake you've made, and that a lot of people who do not understand evolution make, is assuming that evolution and the theory of evolution are one and the same. They're not. We know evolution is true. It's how organisms, as a specie, change over time. It's a fact, it's been observed and we understand how it occurs. Evolution is what Darwin studied, observed and wrote about in 'On the Origin of the Species', and remember, it's on the origin of species, not life. The theory of evolution is different, also known as abiogenesis, its the scientific study of the origin of life through evolution. It is not the same as evolution. It is a theory, and will always be a theory, as even though it has been proven that life can evolve from the inorganic compounds present in the hypothesised conditions of primitive Earth, no-one can prove that it did, as someone would have had to have witnessed it. It could have happened, by all means, but no-one can prove that it did. So back to what you said about Darwin, he was talking about evolution, not the theory of evolution, or abiogenesis. In the Evolution vs Creation debate, evolution refers to abiogenesis. Darwin would only be discussed for talking about how humans evolves from primates, not for talking about the origin of life.

And also I do find it hilarious that you say evolutionists keep changing their theories when the half of the top five main religions in the world are based off of the same deity, and that's not taking into account all their denominations and divisions.

 

*facepalm* Try to read the rest of his quote before using that argument. Infact, try to have an argument, one backed up by something, you know?

 

wasnt the current scientific theory on the creation of life Thunder in the early atmosphere of earth, creating amino-acids? or has that been disproven already?

 

@retanus: you did kinda call him ignorant by saying he doesn't understand it and that's why he doesn't agree. Chef makes a good point about it. I haven't read Hex's stuff, but Chef is spot on in the fact that a lot does seem sketchy for evolution. survival of the fitest, and etc. But i've been studying anatomy phys and it's completely insane hos specialized everything in the body is. and how they all balance and check the others. It's a insane amount of data, function, and balance. Ofc, i could be looking too much into it. but all these things need to work together, in all animals. it makes it hard to see when it first started or evolved. i'm not saying it can't happen with evolution, only jsut some things make me sceptical, and it could be the same with Chef.

I, personally, believe in evolution, however.

 

Yeah, that's a theory of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is just the study of the origin of life, just as biology is the study of living things. Urey and Miller's experiment proved that organic compounds could have been created under the hypothesised conditions of primitive Earth, and, to put it really simplistically, formed the building blocks of what cells are made of, naturally formed membranous cell-like structures which naturally formed into cells. From there, primitive singular celled organisms were formed, which formed multicellular organisms. It's seriously interesting stuff. I suggest reading up on it to anyone who has the time. Either that, or do Bio in high school, haha.

@ Renatus. I have no clue if what you've quoted is in response to Ziar or referring to the quote that needs to be read, but I've decided to cover my arse anyway. Regardless, it'll make a nice summary of what I talked about in the wall I just posted. In short, I responded to all of it. I responded to changing theories and the fact that certain theories have been proved wrong, the accusation of scientists lying in order to make a theory, and finally about the difference between what Darwin studied, being evolution, and abiogenesis, or the natural origin of life.

 

I have covered the argument of Irreducible complexity in a previous post of mine, easier known as the argument of chance.

i did indeed cover this briefly, but i think Dawkins sums up how natural selection is indeed the most viable and logical solution.

"...They think improbability is evidence of design. Darwinian natural selection shows how wrong this is in respect to biological improbability. And although Darwinism may not be directly relevant to the inanimate world – cosmology, for example – it raises our consciousness in areas outside its original territory of biology.
A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity. Before Darwin, philosophers such as Hume understood that the improbability of life did not mean it had to be designed, but they couldn't imagine the alternative. After Darwin, we all should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design. The illusion of design is a trap that has caught us before, and Darwin should have immunized us by raising our consciousness. Would that he had succeeded with all
of us.”

All of this is important if you want to argue such!

-->MOST IMPORTANT<---
What is it that makes natural selection succeed as a solution to the problem of improbability...natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitvely so. When large numbers of these slightly improbable events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation is very very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be far beyond the reach of chance. It is these endproducts that form the subjects of the creationist's wearisomely recycled argument. The creationist completely misses the point, because he...insists on treating the genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off event. He doesn't understand the power of accumulation.


Itzahexgor: I was talking to Ziar ;D. And the quote i was referring to was the one that he briefly mentioned, which is the happy scape goat that creationists always jump onto. Its Darwin making a statment about how the eye is so complex. They leap to the occasion to quote it without realising that darwin was building up to make a point about how that doesnt mean its evidence for intelligent design. Its gotta be the most out of context used quote in the history of mankind >.<.

 

Thats what people call 'quote mining', and its a fairly used weapon creationists use to attampt to undermine people's faith in evolution.

Sure life is really complex, but thats because life as existed and evolved for hundreds-of-millions of years, giving it plenty of time.

 

Indeed, its so damn annoying. Creationists, garawrawwaha!!!!! i actually find them unbearably annoying .

 

Well i have no issues with them as long as they're not trying to get me to believe what they say xD

 

I see them talking about such things, and i want to try and help them, raise their consciousness in such respects... But 90% of the time they dont want any of it, so they ignore and continue to claim fallacies based on ignorance of the subject .

Drives me up the wall i tell ya.

 

They may not go for you, but I do know some of them in the US go after children, teaching kids in elementary school that science is wrong and to believe what god says and not what the scientist says. So they're basically taking evolution and using it to prove to children that science is wrong.

If this catches on, I fear what will become of us in the future. The US has enough enemies that when these anti-science people take over and ruin our technological advantage, the US will be in big trouble.