TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- creationism vs evolution
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10]

Hahaha i love this now 10 vs 1.. or maybe 2 i can't decide whos team sunsail is on.


Don't get me on semantics here ill kill you all i dont care about your gods.


Let me review that video and i will answer all your questions

quote:

Originally posted by Spam If species evolve, then it would stand to reason that out of the billions of species on this planet, at least ONE of them would be found to exist in a half-way state. A fish with legs, a small rodent with a dorsal fin, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

oh, but you want species that are living today?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_catfish

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail yea thats an awful example karim i mean alfi

haha fuck you. it would be alot better if i just knew how to put the words in my head into words on my computer.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I said dog-like mammal. We have been able to manipulate dogs, but we have not been able to create an animal we wouldn't consider a dog. I don't care how long of time they have, a dog will always give birth to a dog.

what about an ass?

Its a mix between 2 species. Or a liger?

Cross breeding species occurs even more with plants and in some cases speciation will with the new cross breed (i think this only works with plants) Albeit certain combinations may lead to fertile offspring mostly your left with infertile ones.

So this is a bit of a divergence but evolution is a long period of time and just because it doesnt look like a dog doesnt mean its not a dog. Its the genetics that are the main factor and even though we do use selective breeding the genetics do stay the same. So the offspring would be viable if you mated two extremely different looking dogs due to their genotypic similarities.

The argument of dogs is just an example to show that visually organisms can change and it doesnt take a very long time with manual selection. Now the genetic aspect is something that takes time as you are relying on generations and generations of mutations and segregation of sub populations from the original population. So we would definatley need an organism with a short generation time such as the fruit fly to observe speciation on the genetic level. This has been shown.

quote:

Cockroaches take shits just like us. Doesn't mean we evolved from them.

we didnt evolve from cocroatches since they are protostomes. (IE their mout developes before their anus.. where our anus developes first)

Our last common ancestor would have to be something like a Chaetognatha


so your argument here is something along the lines on convergent evolution (which means our common ancestor did not have the same trait).. its funny actually because an insects ass is homologous (the same cell derivation) as our mouths.. so techincally an insect uses its ass for what we would use our mouth for. so us throwing up would be homologous to an insect taking a shit. (the action of excretion thruogh an orfice neglecting digestion.)

anyways im going off topic and poking at that analogy. So essentially it comes down to cell tracking and finding out what becomes what from an embryo state. This can be done by dieing the cells and tracking them. Those cells that form certain features on an organism that are exactly the same and from the same anscestors as another organism (lets say our femur and a whale femur) are said to be homologous.

So we know that the cells in a whale femur that end up developing into a whale femur are the same cells that develope to form our femurs. So we say that we both have a common ancestor which would have probably looked something like this:

quote:

I'm giving you very conclusive arguments but it seems like you'r just rejecting my arguments out of hands. Where's you scientific objectivity?

im not rejecting anything. im just asking you to bring some sort of evidence to the table as i am doing.

Eh no really. There's no such thing as a "dog". It's completely subjective. There will never be a point in time when you can say that one generation is a dog and the one before isn't a dog. All species are in constant change.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Yes, but they exist and survive because their genetics perfectly fit the environment they live. It seems just a little bit of a grand coincidence that seals and walruses just HAPPENED to mutate into their present form at the shore of the water. Had they mutated just 10km inland, they would have been eaten by a raccoon and would currently be extinct. No? Or were their ancestors simply fond of the water and enjoyed catching fish. Obviously without their current fins and such, they wouldn't have had much luck catching any fish, so the creatures that mutated fins and the like survived while the original genetic line died off?

sure your looking at a time period of 20 years maximum because thats how long you've been living. How long have we been observing seals?

the time arguemnt doesnt work very well in this frame of course if the species is existing and its functioning its not a conicidence that its managing well. Think about it. certain species have been exisiting for millions of years, what would be the chances that we would be catching them on their emergence or close to their extinction? we're seeing the panda almost become extinct though and it seems visually like a less plausable candidate.

To correct sunsnail, whales evolved from ungullate like creatures (i posted a picture a couple of pages back) which are like hooved animals (ungulate refers to the fact that they walk on their toes or toenails) so essentially the seal wouldnt fit into the in between class because the seals feet are actually at the tail where the whales tale does not contain the feeet. Leg appendages in the whale are found in its body segment and are vesitigial.

Sunsnails point however is a very good one. The seal has features which would seem as a nice transitional animal to evolve into a a whale like creature. there are convergent similarities between a whale and a seal such as the hind fins (they have the same function but they are not actually derived from the same cells, or in this case body parts).

the question of organisms dying off is a question about suitability for the environment. A hybrid land water mammal may have competition from a more agressive water to land variant of the same species. The competition ensues and essentially a split occurs and the aggressive more fine tuned population succeeeds and the original population dies off. This continues for several generations until the organism is fully adapted to water and thats where we have the current whales. (obviously its a long process but essentially thats the conclusion)

quote:

Originally posted by Spam I'm pretty sure that chihuahuas are rodents.

they look like rodents.. but they are genetically dogs. Imagine we found a skeleton of a chiwawa 50 million years from now without hindsight knowledge. I think we may have a hard time classifying it lol.

It takes alot to make a classification of an organism (although scientist change the systems constantly and re arrange orgnaisms).

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Isn't that akin to committing the same mistake that Atheists accuse religious people of making? "We don't know, so it must be evolution." sounds very much the same as "We don't know, so it must be God." from where I'm sitting.

Sure thats fine. but do you just sit there and think.. it must be god. We don't know why people get cancer or why jimmy got cancer.. it must be god.. so be it. or do you try and find a cure?

whats the harm in finding out why and giving scientific thesis to support the facts?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit This can be done by dieing the cells

it's called killing silly.

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi it's called killing silly.

very funny alfi..

i meant dyeing

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit very funny alfi.. i meant dyeing

tee fucking hee

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sunsnail
All species are in constant change. [/QUOTE

Eggs-ACTLY!

And that's why you won't find a half squirrel-half whale. It died before it transformed completely into a chocolate covered marsipan-bar, errr i mean whale.

Useless fact: Whale meat is fucking delicious.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit its radiometric (usually uranium) dating as carbon's half life is to short to make long predictions. They believe its highly innacurate and completely unreliable

Carbon dating is fine. It's accurate up to 60,000 years which is already 6 times longer than how old the Earth is

EDIT - Nvm just read the rest of the thread.
I'm glad Nrg2Nfinit is here. Saves me from making the same sort of long posts.

Nrg2Nfinit I feel like i'm in a lecture when reading all this". As i know very little about the development of species etc etc except: biology for psychology, but have been following this thread, interesting indeed.

You will have to start charging people for your wealth of knowledge

God works in mysterious ways.
There's no proof that dinosaurs existed. The proof is this is that there is no proof that God didn't put fake bones there as a test of faith to his people.

Yeah I've heard that before. Even fundamentalists should have a problem with that logic

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Yeah I've heard that before. Even fundamentalists should have a problem with that logic

I know thats what I'd do if I was god...

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit what about an ass? Its a mix between 2 species. Or a liger? Cross breeding species occurs even more with plants and in some cases speciation will with the new cross breed (i think this only works with plants) Albeit certain combinations may lead to fertile offspring mostly your left with infertile ones. So this is a bit of a divergence but evolution is a long period of time and just because it doesnt look like a dog doesnt mean its not a dog. Its the genetics that are the main factor and even though we do use selective breeding the genetics do stay the same. So the offspring would be viable if you mated two extremely different looking dogs due to their genotypic similarities. The argument of dogs is just an example to show that visually organisms can change and it doesnt take a very long time with manual selection. Now the genetic aspect is something that takes time as you are relying on generations and generations of mutations and segregation of sub populations from the original population. So we would definatley need an organism with a short generation time such as the fruit fly to observe speciation on the genetic level. This has been shown.

The liger is still a cat, and the donkey (which isn't a cross-breed by the way), is still a horse. Fruit flies are still flies, an the plants are still plants.

quote:

we didnt evolve from cocroatches since they are protostomes. (IE their mout developes before their anus.. where our anus developes first) [quote]Our last common ancestor would have to be something like a Chaetognatha [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Chaetoblack.png[IMG]

We'r related to roaches? That's crazy. No wonder the likes of Hitler could see others on the same level as rats. Evolution allows people the excuse to naturally select their fellow man.

quote:

You'r implying physiological similarities equate to a relationship between two completely different animals. I'v demonstrated that completely wrong. So we know that the cells in a whale femur that end up developing into a whale femur are the same cells that develope to form our femurs. So we say that we both have a common ancestor which would have probably looked something like this: [IMG]http://darwiniana.org/EomaiaRecon.jpg[IMG]

Racoon looking things become whales? That's crazy. I guess polar bears should soon start looking like whales too.

quote:

im not rejecting anything. im just asking you to bring some sort of evidence to the table as i am doing.

What specific evidence do you need?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The liger is still a cat, and the donkey (which isn't a cross-breed by the way), is still a horse. Fruit flies are still flies, an the plants are still plants.

sure a cat is a suborder (Feliformia). not all animals from that order are interbreedable. you cannot breed a domestic cat with a lion for instance.. it wont work. So the cat is just a cat argument doesnt really fly. cladistics, remember, is simply our best organization and groupings of organisms based on genetic or phenotypic (visual) features. So we have 2 genetically and phenotypically different species capable of interbreeding and producing offpsring. Keep in mind these animals both come from the same genus and are classified as such so must be fairly closely related, but for semantics sake we have them under different species (although the visual differences are quite striking). Believe it or not donkeys are more distantly related to the common horse though.. so its more of a true cross breed when you mix a donkey with a horse (you produce an mule Not an ass sorry). A male horse and a female donkey you produce a hinny. A mule has a higher probability for fertility but usually the males are infertile.

So again i appologize as instead of ass i meant mule

quote:

We'r related to roaches? That's crazy. No wonder the likes of Hitler could see others on the same level as rats. Evolution allows people the excuse to naturally select their fellow man.

not really there is no direct lineage between us and roaches as i mentioned before. We would be considered very distant cousins with our common great 1.25x10^7 generations ago uncle or aunt being that bilatera creature, chaetognatha (given that the average life expectancy was 40 years per generation, a generously short estimate considering most bilatera have a very short life span.)

Well unfortunatley we do not abide by natures law, and this is my own diversion now. Since we manipulate the environment as much as we can to suite us instead of letting the environment shape ourselves, natural selection doesnt really work for us in the same sense as it does for animals. We are not segregated based on our physicality, stature ability to see hear or camoflauge but instead we all have our own benefits and individuality that play a role in teh society we live in. Social welfare helps those with disabilities to assimilate into our social structure and those who lack in certain skills but make up with alternative skills to do so as well. This is an anthropological debate which im not well versed in so ill leave it at that.

quote:

Racoon looking things become whales? That's crazy. I guess polar bears should soon start looking like whales too.

polar bears are closely related to dogs and bears so i would assume that the evolutionary strategy would lead decendents of the bear, if they indeed regress to the water, towards more seal like structure with a retainment of their hind limbs as fins.

quote:

What specific evidence do you need?

something conclusive maybe? peer reviewed research. The problem with intelligent design is that they are searching for any plausibility to introduce miracles and god as the proclamation for the origin of stagnant species. This leaves the idea unopen to interpretation as faith cannot be challenged as it is not empirical.

The worst part about this is that it leaves science itself at a standstill with regards to this subject. With the disappearance of evolution from science we cannot further pursue how genetics manipulates organs and cell structures (with inferences to other organisms), pursue the causes of cancer and other hereditary diseases. Why pursue more when we have an unchallengeable answer (the supernatural cannot be contested since it is not testable).

this is essential goal of intelligent design, to close the book on disecting organism progression on the micro and macro level (as they are both synonymous.)

Here is an intresting documentary exposing intelligent design simply as creationism and faulty science. Basically they are finding anyway to hault the teachings of evolution and instead show that a creator is essential for all organisms to have been created and organisms cannot progress by showing that certain molecular structures are unable to have evolved due to their complexity. The defense is intruiging.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?do...729062613200911



Here is also a visually entertaining series which follows the progression of organisms from 500 million years ago to present time. Its mostly done in cgi, but you get to see an intresting interpretation of the animals and how they would have acted at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_li...B0CDB449&page=1

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.