people adapting to their environment would entitle evolution of their skin pigment so it be more resistant to the sun so adam and eve just owned themselves...

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here. But there are plenty of brilliant biologists in every field who deny evolution. And they say you're stupid for accepting it.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 6 2008, 10:07 am by razorsnail.

For future posters, please provide evidence instead of simply making points.

Please read the forum rules and make sure that your posts are valid for this discussion. Otherwise, your posts may be deleted.

The peppered moth shift from light colored to dark colored was not a mutation. the moths already contained genetic information for both variations of moths. It was simply a shift in population for the moths. The ones who were darker got to live in that circumstance, its not any different from a genocide. if you are a certain color of skin, or of a certain tribe/religious group then you are spared. In the case of peppered moths, the birds were commiting genocide towards the lightly pigmented moths that stuck out like a sore thumb on trees with soot, and got eaten. as someone has already said in this topic, not survival of the fittest survival of the luckiest.


i didnt misread, i misunderstood. i thought you were slamming him because he is catholic. lol, my bad.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Jul 6 2008, 4:58 pm by midget_man_66. Reason: i keep messing up what i want to say >.>

The genetic encoding for the color spectrum of moths came about by the combination and recombination of genes through meiosis and sexual reproduction. Whether or not it is technically mutation, it is still an example of natural selection forcing a change in a population over time.

Quote

as someone has already said in this topic, not survival of the fittest survival of the luckiest.

There is no such thing as survival of the 'luckiest' in that case. If some moths survived, it was because they possessed a characteristic - the ability to camouflage - that other moths lacked. Thus they were more 'fit' to survive. Perpetuation of genetic characteristics can also be caused by selective breeding; for example, in some bird species, females will only mate with the males with the longest tail feathers. Because of this, the male birds' tail feathers have lengthened over time, since longer tail feathers make it easier to get a mate.

there is alot of physical evidence of evolution just look at one species fossils from the same region between a few tens of thousands years and youll see slight/big changes in their cranial structure etc. etc. is there any proof that god made everything perfectly in a week? and who is to say god didnt make evolution or possibly GUIDED evolution to make what he wanted, seems like it'd be less work, why havent we found fossils of species that "apperently" evolved after earlier species, in the time period of only crustacious we should be finding some dog and elephant fossils if that was true, or fully developed human fossils from 200million years ago. there is alot my physical proof to evolution then creationism weither life was sparked by a said "god" or it was guided by one or not makes alot more sense than him just being like hmm i think im going to creat all existance now woo *snaps fingers* well im pooped ill continue for the next 5 days, and who is to say 7days for god would be 7days earth time, everyplay has different lengths of days what if gods day was i dunno a few billion years? in that case it wouldnt seem to crazy that he did create life in 7 "days".

I completely understand natural selection. Its interesting how you say the black peppered moths were more fit to survive, when just before the industrial revolution the darkly colored ones were the prey of choice, seeing that before the soot got on the trees they were olmost white. It is Luck and Chance in favor of the black moths that this industrial revolution occured. this gave the black moths an advantage, not because they bettered themselves through any sort of process but because the environment changed to their advantage.

I meant natural selection, but anyway I disagree. I believe something is mutated and by luck it can better survive and reproduce. The rest of the mutants that aren't so lucky and can survive better die.

okay then what alternatives are there to evolution? I only know of god and then evolution what else is there?

Yes, it was luck for the black moths that conditions turned to favor them. So in that sense, I guess you could see it as survival of the 'luckiest'. However, once conditions change, the individuals most fit for those conditions are the ones who survive. As a species, the moths have both black and white individuals, so no matter the environment change for color, some moths will survive. This is an example of the successfulness of evolution to perpetuate life.

exactly. IMO the point isn't about the details of how the world came into existence through God (like how long the "days" were, what happened between the first and last day, etc), but instead the main message Moses in the Book of Genesis is trying to get across is simply that God was responsible for our existence.

One thing I'd like to point out is that the definition of believe is different in scientific feilds than it is in religious doctrine.
Believing in scientific theories doen't mean they are absolutely correct, in fact many know that they are not the truth. (Especially in chemistry, where much of what were told is sort of hand-waving "this isn't true but it's close" concepts)
Believing in them simply means that it seems like the most logical explaination.

I find it funny that animals created god so he could create them.

I believe in Evolution, not that it rules out religion like most people think, as it's very possible that God could have used science to do his work, it says he created the Earth in 6 days, well it also says one day to God is 1000 of or days, now am I supposed to actually take the 1000 days literally? There is definite proof that evolution exists, it just bugs me that people seem to think that Evolution being true must mean God isn't.

Allright, I am very learned on this topic and can answer most likely every question you've got.

With falkoners last post, 1000 days is like a sinlge day means that there is no time in heaven. This also means that those in heaven are NOT bound by time like we on earth are.

Now as for proof that evolution exists? Ha! There has NEVER been one little shred of ANYTHING proven lolol!!

As proof for this go to google and type DrDino.com There has been a 250,000 dollar reward for someone who proves evolution. Its been there for years and noone has proven anything!

I am going to read through this thread and answer everyone.. This topic is going to be fun.

This. Falkoner wins.

No, I just answered falkoner. lol

Hmmmm. Well, there are the DNA proofs and fosils...

Insomuch as we can't "prove" that gravity is a real and significant force in the universe.
Evolution has enough evidence behind it that we have as much "proved" it as is reasonably possible.
Semantics are tiresome, at times.

Allright there are actually 6 types of evolution. The I will talk about are macro and micro evolution. With Micro Evoltution, this involves species changing with its own certian kind. This includes dogs. There are many different types of dogs which all originated from 2 dogs way back when. But every kind of dog, is still a dog. There are many species of wolves, and hounds, and pets, but they are all dogs. Macro evolution is one kind changing to another, like a banana tree changing into a fly. This has never been seen, and neer been proven, and so far is mythical.

As for a good mutation, no, there are NEVER any 'good' mutations. Also with a mutation, for evolution to succeed you would need a new input, a new addition to an organisms DNA, and this has never been seen ever. Like when a cow has a mutation of 5 legs, the cow (during conception) already had DNA of how to make a leg, it just made an extra one. There would be no new addition to the cows DNA strand. As for bacteria and viral mutation becoming immune to antibiotics.. Well antibiotics work by detecting bacteria through the nodes on the surface of a cacterial cell. These nodes are what identify your blood type on your blood cell, anyways, when a bacterium mutates it loses information inside of its DNA strand through an error during mitosis (splitting of the cell). This loss of info sometimes includes these nodes, so you have a bacteria cell with a new 'tag'. Since this bacteria has a new 'tag' (being the nodes) the antibiotic does not recognize the cell and the cell is unharmed. Then all the other bacteria are wiped out except the mutated one. Well since this is a loss of information in the bacteria's DNA, it is harmfull to the bacteria and does not allow the bacteria to become anything 'more' than a bacteria. The reason this mutation is harmful is: Say you wre being chased by the police and they wanted to handcuff you, well, you 'mutate' and cut off your arms. Now the police cant handcuff you. Well is this beneficial? At the time it is.. but later down the road you will need your arms, and you will die without them. Same with the bacteria, at the time the mutation is helpful, but since it LOST DNA later down the rode this will be harmful to the bacteria.



***Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises. For example, "Racism is wrong. Therefore, we need affirmative action." Obviously, there is at least one missing step in this argument, because the wrongness of racism does not imply a need for affirmative action without some additional support (such as, "Racism is common," "Affirmative action would reduce racism," "There are no superior alternatives to affirmative action," etc.). ****

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 8 2008, 6:02 am by A_of-s_t. Reason: Horrible...

As for proving gravity, well the gravity IS a theory. But! You can actually test gravity and gravity is able to be tested anytime. As with evolution, you can never 'test' evolution, and therefore it hardly qualifies as a theory.

***Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious.***

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 8 2008, 5:56 am by A_of-s_t. Reason: ...this is some HORRIBLE logic.

Actually, god created humans with free will, and with free will comes the certian obligations, like you must take account of your own actions. That is common sense. Now with God making a mistake by creating man.. Well he made man to love him by choice. So if he made man, and didnt give them free will, then man couldn't choose to love god without free will. Also man needs another choice other than god to excersize man's free will, because if man had free will with only one choice, being to love god, than the free will wouldn't really be free. So the other choice for man is sin. And during the days of moses god man all sinning men die, except moses who was perfect.

***Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal. ***

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 8 2008, 5:58 am by A_of-s_t. Reason: ...this is some HORRIBLE logic.