NationStates Jolt Archive

I know most people accept evolution on these forums and I have a good way to increase the power of an evolutionary argument.

This a true example

Insects infested my house.
We set traps, they die.
Within two years the traps have no effect.
An exterminator confirms that the insects are the same species.
The only explanation for this is localized evolution.

The insects with the genetic mutation of trap resistance survived and passed the trait on to their offspring. The high reproductive rate of the insects allowed the entire species to change with in a few generations.


Can any point out any holes in this argument?

Yeah, maybe the traps expired after being used for two years...

they werent the same traps

Yeah, maybe the traps expired after being used for two years...

I know most people accept evolution on these forums and I have a good way to increase the power of an evolutionary argument.

This a true example

Insects infested my house.
We set traps, they die.
Within two years the traps have no effect.
An exterminator confirms that the insects are the same species.
The only explanation for this is localized evolution.

The insects with the genetic mutation of trap resistance survived and passed the trait on to their offspring. The high reproductive rate of the insects allowed the entire species to change with in a few generations.


Can any point out any holes in this argument?

Insect minf: Traps = Bad ergo, AVOID.

Survival instinct.

Insect minf: Traps = Bad ergo, AVOID.

Survival instinct.

the key thing is two years later
the insects that walked right through the traps were not afected

they werent the same traps

I know.

God loves insects and wants them to live - he designed them specifically to learn to walk through your traps - it's intelligent design of insects not evolution.

The hole in your argument is that anything can be explained by an omnipotent, omniscient God.

Anything humans have said about God is fallible because humans said it - try find a hole in what Jesus said or did.

simple...Jesus made the bugs magic...

God loves insects and wants them to live - he designed them specifically to learn to walk through your traps - it's intelligent design of insects not evolution.

The hole in your argument is that anything can be explained by an omnipotent, omniscient God.

Anything humans have said about God is fallible because humans said it - try find a hole in what Jesus said or did.

Well, that time we went drinking and he stabbed that guy... I mean, that kind of puts a hole in his whole persona...

Well, that time we went drinking and he stabbed that guy... I mean, that kind of puts a hole in his whole persona...

Who's making things up now? Off to hell with you.

Who's making things up now? Off to hell with you.

Hell? No!

Jesus is my boy! I kept my mouth shut when the cops showed up, askin' questions.

I even let him borrow my passport to get out of the country for awhile, 'til the heat was off.

Bethany: You knew Jesus?
Rufus: Knew him? Shit... Nigga owes me twelve bucks.

:)

Kevin Smith is my hero.

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/images/blog/buddy-jesus.jpg

Kevin Smith is my hero.

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/images/blog/buddy-jesus.jpg

"You are the only one in this room who is truely free of sin...But you didn't say 'god bless you' when I sneezed..."
"Loki! Come on!"

Ahh...Sweet comedy...

"You are the only one in this room who is truely free of sin...But you didn't say 'god bless you' when I sneezed..."
"Loki! Come on!"

Ahh...Sweet comedy...

Yeah.

"What gear are you in?"
"GEAR?!"

---

"Hot naked chicks don't just fall from the sky, you know!"

LOL - that was totally the one I was about to write :)

http://www61.pair.com/talbert/pipeimages/news-cthulhu.jpg

Buddy Cthulhu beats Buddy Christ any day of the week.

Also: you can't "prove" evolution. You can only show that this particular experiment supports the theory of evolution.

"What gear are you in?"
"GEAR?!"

LOL - that was totally the one I was about to write :)

I know most people accept evolution on these forums and I have a good way to increase the power of an evolutionary argument.

This a true example

Insects infested my house.
We set traps, they die.
Within two years the traps have no effect.
An exterminator confirms that the insects are the same species.
The only explanation for this is localized evolution.

The insects with the genetic mutation of trap resistance survived and passed the trait on to their offspring. The high reproductive rate of the insects allowed the entire species to change with in a few generations.


Can any point out any holes in this argument?
Same thing with rodents and poisions. but is it evolution or an adapting immune system?

Same thing would happen to humans if Advanced Medicine wasn't around.

I know most people accept evolution on these forums and I have a good way to increase the power of an evolutionary argument.

This a true example

Insects infested my house.
We set traps, they die.
Within two years the traps have no effect.
An exterminator confirms that the insects are the same species.
The only explanation for this is localized evolution.

The insects with the genetic mutation of trap resistance survived and passed the trait on to their offspring. The high reproductive rate of the insects allowed the entire species to change with in a few generations.


Can any point out any holes in this argument?

Creationists like to pretend that there's a difference between what they call 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. They'd say this is an example of 'micro-evolution'.

Same thing with rodents and poisions. but is it evolution or an adapting immune system?

Same thing would happen to humans if Advanced Medicine wasn't around.

That's what evolution is. Adaptation. It's like saying "airplanes can't fly, they're heavier than air. Well, those ones aren't flying, they're just compressing air beneath their wings while reducing the air pressure above them so that they get blown upwards in a controlled fashion. But they're not flying."

Creationists like to pretend that there's a difference between what they call 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. They'd say this is an example of 'micro-evolution'.

Yeah. Like how one plus one equals two, and two plus two equals four. But it's impossible to get to a number like 1,000,000 by just going on like that. The number 1,000,000 is totally different from the number one, it has six zeros in it! The number one doesn't have any. It only has an "O." That's why the rules of grammar say that you're supposed to spell numbers like one and five, but you use numerals for numbers like 1,000,000.

An exterminator confirms that the insects are the same species.
The only explanation for this is localized evolution.

Can any point out any holes in this argument?

If the insects are still the same species. Then isn't that not evoloution? Isn't just adaption or natural selection or something?

I know most people accept evolution on these forums and I have a good way to increase the power of an evolutionary argument.


An exterminator confirms that the insects are the same species.
The only explanation for this is localized evolution.

The insects with the genetic mutation of trap resistance survived and passed the trait on to their offspring. The high reproductive rate of the insects allowed the entire species to change with in a few generations.


Can any point out any holes in this argument?

I haven't heard of this before... You have proved evolution!!!! If they did evolve wouldn't they be a completely different species?

You have shown that the bugs have adapted to their enviroment.

Has your example proved that flies evolved from one celled ameobas?

Evolve a little and use some pesticide

If the insects are still the same species. Then isn't that not evoloution? Isn't just adaption or natural selection or something?

Evolution is simply the change in allele frequency in a population. Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution and there's no difference between 'evolution' and 'adaption'.

I haven't heard of this before... You have proved evolution!!!! If they did evolve wouldn't they be a completely different species?

You have shown that the bugs have adapted to their enviroment.

Has your example proved that flies evolved from one celled ameobas?

Evolve a little and use some pesticide

No, there are far better ways of showing common descent. Shall we start by showing that humans and chimpanzees have a commom ancestor?

God loves insects and wants them to live - he designed them specifically to learn to walk through your traps - it's intelligent design of insects not evolution.

The hole in your argument is that anything can be explained by an omnipotent, omniscient God.

Anything humans have said about God is fallible because humans said it - try find a hole in what Jesus said or did.

Bible = man man made, control method. Try to prove anything in it is real. Humans have a tendency to lie and deceive for their own ends.

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/7205/1181605052220ej2.gif

no difference between 'evolution' and 'adaption'.
There isn't? Seriously?

Bible = man man made, control method. Try to prove anything in it is real. Humans have a tendency to lie and deceive for their own ends.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/Wackiest/untitled.jpg
I really don't see the problem with being 'stupid' or 'religious' as long as you're happy what does it matter?

Some guy, I forget who, said: "It's better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be a wiseman dissatisfied than a fool satisfied"

I so disagree with whoever said that.

Stepping aside from trying to falsify "macro-evolution,"
there is a definite problem with this "proof" of anything evolutionary at all.

There is no such thing as beneficial genetic mutation.
Your problem with the bugs is an example of genetic VARIATION.
You didn't create two new species of bugs,
but different breeds of the same species.

Here's an example of this a little closer to home, which was presented on... the Discovery Channel, I think: :p

For centuries, Europe was ravaged by the Black Plague. Millions of people died. Not everyone exposed to the Plague contracted it, and not everyone who contracted it died. Medical researches think they may have found a link between the Black Plague and the AIDS virus, in terms of biological resistance to it. Apparently, the viruses can't interact with all cells. Those people with a certain genetic code are immune to it completely. Those who only have half of this particular genetic code contract the plague or the AIDS virus, but don't die from it. Those who don't have the genes at all, well... they're pretty much toast. Obviously those who survived the Black Plague are going to be the ones passing down their genes to the next generations. Does this create a new species of people? No. But they've adapted to their environment so to speak.

Probably more obvious is the fact that there are different kinds of people, and dogs, and horses. These aren't different species (are wolves really a different species than dogs? Can't we breed the two together?) but the same species, but different "breeds." Are black people a different species than white people? Yet black people are adapted for living in Africa and such places. On the other hand, white people aren't, but don't get sickle-cell anemia.

I think I'm off on a tangent, but you catch my drift!

;)

Stepping aside from trying to falsify "macro-evolution,"
there is a definite problem with this "proof" of anything evolutionary at all.

There is no such thing as beneficial genetic mutation.
Your problem with the bugs is an example of genetic VARIATION.
You didn't create two new species of bugs,
but different breeds of the same species.

Here's an example of this a little closer to home, which was presented on... the Discovery Channel, I think: :p

For centuries, Europe was ravaged by the Black Plague. Millions of people died. Not everyone exposed to the Plague contracted it, and not everyone who contracted it died. Medical researches think they may have found a link between the Black Plague and the AIDS virus, in terms of biological resistance to it. Apparently, the viruses can't interact with all cells. Those people with a certain genetic code are immune to it completely. Those who only have half of this particular genetic code contract the plague or the AIDS virus, but don't die from it. Those who don't have the genes at all, well... they're pretty much toast. Obviously those who survived the Black Plague are going to be the ones passing down their genes to the next generations. Does this create a new species of people? No. But they've adapted to their environment so to speak.

Probably more obvious is the fact that there are different kinds of people, and dogs, and horses. These aren't different species (are wolves really a different species than dogs? Can't we breed the two together?) but the same species, but different "breeds." Are black people a different species than white people? Yet black people are adapted for living in Africa and such places. On the other hand, white people aren't, but don't get sickle-cell anemia.

I think I'm off on a tangent, but you catch my drift!

;)

Congradulations. You just described natural selection and microevolution. You just defeated your own argument. I unfortunately can't find a cat pic that appropriately captures the "Heh, you just proved yourself wrong in your own post," but I'm sure it's out there.

*snip*

There's a book called Survival of the Sickest that goes into how hemachromatosis is a condition made prevalent by the Bubonic plague. Apparently it means blood-letting was not such a bad thing after all.

Just as irrelevant I suppose.

There's a book called Survival of the Sickest that goes into how hemachromatosis is a condition made prevalent by the Bubonic plague. Apparently it means blood-letting was not such a bad thing after all.

Just as irrelevant I suppose.

Not to mention that sickle-cell is a beneficial mutation to people living in areas where malaria is common.

One thing sparky fails to realize is that evolution doesn't mean selection of mutations and advantages necessarily favorable to ALL environments. It just means selection of mutations and advantages favorable to the ENVIRONMENT YOU LIVE IN NOW!

There is no such thing as beneficial genetic mutation.

Utter rubbish. Off the top of my head: the nylon bug, lactose tolerance, and antibody resistance.

This is an unbelievably stupid argument for two reasons. Firstly, any mutation can be reversed by another mutation, so if harmful mutations exist (which they do) then logically speaking a mutation must exist which can undo them, and this mutation must be beneficial. Secondly, whether a mutation is beneficial or not will often depend on the enviroment: a mutation which allows fish to synthesise a kind of biological anti-freeze (yes, it's been observed) is vital for fish living in the Artic Circle, but harmful for a fish living on the equator.

Your problem with the bugs is an example of genetic VARIATION.
You didn't create two new species of bugs,
but different breeds of the same species.

And how many mutations does it take to make a new species? We can observe species change in bacteria.

There isn't? Seriously?

Not as long as the adaption is a genetic one. Getting a sun tan isn't evolution, increased melanin production is.

You could have just proven evolution is an inalienable truth but it won't change that 37 of independents, 40% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans doubt the legitimacy of evolutionary theory.

Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/Default.aspx?ci=27847)

Religion does truly play a strong part. There are various reasons based on religion but it is the biggest player. Though, there are some who don't believe simply because there is not enough scientific evidence.

If you don't think religion plays a big part, if you scroll down to the graphs near the middle, you'll find a breakdown that shows that the majority of people who go to weekly services (74%) do not believe in evolution as a theory and those numbers decline as overall willingness to frequent goes down.

In many cases, it would seem that religion is incompatible with evolution, though the Catholic Church and other sects may have eased up on it, accepting it as a truth.

Sorry to hijack and bring religion into it but I just found this breakdown to be interesting. It does give good insight into how some Americans see creation vs evolution.

I'm willling to bet that many, if not most, of the 14% who said that there isn't enough evidence were motivated by religion.

It's very possible, but I wasn't going to say that because maybe they're the agnostics of evolution.

Obviously those who survived the Black Plague are going to be the ones passing down their genes to the next generations. Does this create a new species of people?Um, yes. The species with immunity to Plague is different from the one without, from which it has evolved.

Religion does truly play a strong part. There are various reasons based on religion but it is the biggest player. Though, there are some who don't believe simply because there is not enough scientific evidence.

I'm willling to bet that many, if not most, of the 14% who said that there isn't enough evidence were motivated by religion.

It's very possible, but I wasn't going to say that because maybe they're the agnostics of evolution.

I guess they could be, but I have my doubts.

We did an experiment very similar to this in biology lessons, with bacterias.

It's very simple: take two small boxes, put cotton, water with a bit of sugar on them. Then put a bit of bacteria on both them. In one corner, but an antiobitics pill.

Now, take one of them, and put it a few hours under UV light.

Wait two weeks.

In the box that was under UV light, the bacteria are now everywhere, even around the antibiotics. On the box without UV light, no bacteria will be close to the antibiotics.

Wait two months.

The bacteria will be everywhere in the two boxes.

Nice experiment showing evolution of bacteria, effect of UV light speeding it up, and antibiotics resistance (and why you should NEVER take antibiotics without a doctor telling you to do it, and NEVER take more or less than what he said).

Um, yes. The species with immunity to Plague is different from the one without, from which it has evolved.

Um, no.

The people before are Homo Sapien, the people after are Home Sapien. Same species. If you're going to claim that every instance of evolution produces a new species, then there is no single human species: instead there are 6 billion (or so) different species, all of a single individual.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) includes the text
Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring (admitting that this is not a 100% accurate definition). So, in this case, the plague survivors can still interbreed with those people who were never exposed to the plague (and have the original DNA). Thus the same species (and whether the offspring express the immunity is down to whether the survival trait is carried by a dominant or recessive gene).

Um, no.

The people before are Homo Sapien, the people after are Home Sapien. Same species. If you're going to claim that every instance of evolution produces a new species, then there is no single human species: instead there are 6 billion (or so) different species, all of a single individual.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) includes the text
(admitting that this is not a 100% accurate definition). So, in this case, the plague survivors can still interbreed with those people who were never exposed to the plague (and have the original DNA). Thus the same species (and whether the offspring express the immunity is down to whether the survival trait is carried by a dominant or recessive gene).


it still shows evolution


species can evolve without becoming a new species because they can breed with the devolved form of the species

If the insects are still the same species. Then isn't that not evoloution? Isn't just adaption or natural selection or something?

adaptation is evolution on a smaller scale.

adaptation is evolution on a smaller scale.no. the adaption of an individual to its environment during its lifetime has nothing to do with evolution if the adapted properties of the individual are not carried into the next generation.
evolution happens when genetic variance within a population creates advantages (or disadvantages respectively) for the individuals carrying these variances within the habitat they live in when it comes to procreation. When a genetic property causes the individuals carrying this property to somehow have more offspring than those that do not, then a shift in the overall genetic setup of the species occurs, which can even be a break-up of the species into two groups: the one with the 'new' property and the group without. If such two groups are also separated geographically (and often geographic and thus habitat differences are the reason for genetic differences to become 'selection' criteria in the first place) then further changes in the respective group genome will accumulate and the species will grow further apart in their properties. You may still call that genetic variance but that's basically how evolution works.

That's what evolution is. Adaptation. It's like saying "airplanes can't fly, they're heavier than air. Well, those ones aren't flying, they're just compressing air beneath their wings while reducing the air pressure above them so that they get blown upwards in a controlled fashion. But they're not flying."

adaptation is evolution on a smaller scale.

it still shows evolution


species can evolve without becoming a new species because they can breed with the devolved form of the species

Evolution is Adaption... Adaption is Evolution...

*puts on creationists hat*

Well, the creationists out there can also call adaption the "Hand of God" thus those wasps "blessed by God" would then become immune to the poision and their offspring would also be blessed.

Same with any other example of Adaption.

also, no where in the bible does it state that 'Adaption' is not the work of God.

*takes off Creationist hat*

of course, I'm no creationist. to me, Evolution is the HOW, it doesn't disprove, nor does it prove, the exisitance of God.

also, adaption isn't Evolution.

or are you saying that when you adapted to the environment and started crawling, you evolved into a mobile being. then you evolved into a bi-pedial being....

I know most people accept evolution on these forums and I have a good way to increase the power of an evolutionary argument.

This a true example

Insects infested my house.
We set traps, they die.
Within two years the traps have no effect.
An exterminator confirms that the insects are the same species.
The only explanation for this is localized evolution.

The insects with the genetic mutation of trap resistance survived and passed the trait on to their offspring. The high reproductive rate of the insects allowed the entire species to change with in a few generations.


Can any point out any holes in this argument?

That's a classic example of microevolution, something that very few people deny occurs. However, the process of macroevolution is still unable to be proven. This sort of evidence may work fine to explain the various subspecies of the world, such as tigers in different areas of the world having different traits, but it falls short of explaining how a fish can, over time develop into a lizard, or how a species of apes can develop conciousness.

1) Gravity.
2) Evolution.
3) Climate Change.

That's a classic example of microevolution, something that very few people deny occurs. However, the process of macroevolution is still unable to be proven. This sort of evidence may work fine to explain the various subspecies of the world, such as tigers in different areas of the world having different traits, but it falls short of explaining how a fish can, over time develop into a lizard, or how a species of apes can develop conciousness.

Micro- and macroevolution are the same thing, simply on different scales.

That's a classic example of microevolution, something that very few people deny occurs. However, the process of macroevolution is still unable to be proven. This sort of evidence may work fine to explain the various subspecies of the world, such as tigers in different areas of the world having different traits, but it falls short of explaining how a fish can, over time develop into a lizard, or how a species of apes can develop conciousness.

Look up ring species. It's a snapshot of speciation, or macroevolution as you might call it, in progress. Populations of what were once one species, separated by distance or natural obstacles slowly accumulate mutations that prevent the population on one side of the obstacle from being able to reproduce with the population on the other side.

As for how a fish can over time develop into a lizard, that's not a problem. Gradual accumulation of different genes explains it quite nicely. I've got a really tough question for you though. What limit is there on microevolution that would prevent the changes from accumulating to the point that a new species is developed?

That's a classic example of microevolution, something that very few people deny occurs. However, the process of macroevolution is still unable to be proven. This sort of evidence may work fine to explain the various subspecies of the world, such as tigers in different areas of the world having different traits, but it falls short of explaining how a fish can, over time develop into a lizard, or how a species of apes can develop conciousness.

Macroevolution is speciation. Guess what has been observed hundreds upon hundreds of times in the laboratory?

1) Gravity.
2) Evolution.
3) Climate Change.

I don't think it is idiotic to dispute any of those things. I see attempting to disprove accepted scientific theory as a very important part of science itself. Every time someone tries and fails to disprove a theory they just make its' case stronger as we've just discovered a new way that it isn't false if you catch my drift. Also, you never know, the next attempt might actually disprove it and cause us to gain a whole new way of looking at the universe.

Making government policy based on fanciful contestations of these theories on the other hand....

Micro- and macroevolution are the same thing, simply on different scales.Genes are always pretty much the same scale.

List of idiotic things to dispute.

1) Gravity.
2) Evolution.
3) Climate Change.

Well, it is indeed idiotic to dispute their existence. Discussions on how they work are not idiotic, however.

Genes are always pretty much the same scale.

Macroscopic genes would be an inconvenience.

Macroscopic genes would be an inconvenience.What scale are you referring to? And what is this silly distinction between macro- and micro-evolution about? evolution is evolution, just that. it's about which genes make it into the next generation. what scale is to be considered here?

Stepping aside from trying to falsify "macro-evolution,"
there is a definite problem with this "proof" of anything evolutionary at all.

There is no such thing as beneficial genetic mutation.
Your problem with the bugs is an example of genetic VARIATION.
You didn't create two new species of bugs,
but different breeds of the same species.

Here's an example of this a little closer to home, which was presented on... the Discovery Channel, I think: :p

For centuries, Europe was ravaged by the Black Plague. Millions of people died. Not everyone exposed to the Plague contracted it, and not everyone who contracted it died. Medical researches think they may have found a link between the Black Plague and the AIDS virus, in terms of biological resistance to it. Apparently, the viruses can't interact with all cells. Those people with a certain genetic code are immune to it completely. Those who only have half of this particular genetic code contract the plague or the AIDS virus, but don't die from it. Those who don't have the genes at all, well... they're pretty much toast. Obviously those who survived the Black Plague are going to be the ones passing down their genes to the next generations. Does this create a new species of people? No. But they've adapted to their environment so to speak.

Probably more obvious is the fact that there are different kinds of people, and dogs, and horses. These aren't different species (are wolves really a different species than dogs? Can't we breed the two together?) but the same species, but different "breeds." Are black people a different species than white people? Yet black people are adapted for living in Africa and such places. On the other hand, white people aren't, but don't get sickle-cell anemia.

I think I'm off on a tangent, but you catch my drift!

;)

Organisms can change and adapt and still be the same species. When the genes of one population differ enough from another population so that they cannont interbreed, it creates a new species. If there was no interbreeding between Europeans and Africans for a long time and there was sufficient environmental pressure on one population, they would eventually become seperate species.

It is amazing that three diffrent researchers developed three different biological theories that actually reinforce each other. Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution, Gregor Mendel and the theory of genetics and James Watson and Francis Crick with the theory of DNA. You would think that if evolution was false, newer discoveries would find flaws in it instead of stregthening it.

There is no such thing as beneficial genetic mutation.
Your problem with the bugs is an example of genetic VARIATION.
You didn't create two new species of bugs,
but different breeds of the same species.



I didn't take time to look this up, but has been covered in major scientific magazines.

A university started out with a group of fruit flies and divided them into three groups. One group with each generation they kept increasing the temperature and with another group they kept decreasing the temperature, with the third they left at normal temperature.

Over generations the groups in changing temperature adapted. And they adapted to the point where they could no longer reproduce with members of the other two groups.

Result: Humans have forced evolution to the point of creating new species.

The only way to prove there is such a thing as evolution is to open up a peanut butter jar and find dinosaurs in it.

When a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it doesn't make a sound.

The only way to prove there is such a thing as evolution is to open up a peanut butter jar and find dinosaurs in it.

When a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it doesn't make a sound.

WHAT The FUCK?

The only way to prove there is such a thing as evolution is to open up a peanut butter jar and find dinosaurs in it.

When a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it doesn't make a sound.

You can prove that sound exists by having a machine that can measure sound waves. You said if no one hears it, not if no thing hears it...

I read in the national geographic about a group of pygmy humans living in the indonisian islands, the artical went on to say that, without a doubt we shared a distinct ancestory, but yet we where no longer gentically compatible, i.e. breed.

as for specific adaptations, that can harm as opposed to originally helping, religion itself seems be. Religion once helped people make sense of their world and get on with their lives, but today it caustic, harmful and let's use make up the rules as we go along. Every now and again change most occur or become incompatible with the world around, but evolution isn't my or most others end all answer (not spiritually speaking), It's what fits now. I'm not saying that evolution will ever be proven wrong just our understanding of it. remember when we where absolutly sure that the atom was the absolutly smallest thing? Then we discovered the quark.

The best way to compare the merits of Creationism and Evolution is to test the predictions they make. Unfortunately Creationism doesn't really make any predictions, so we'll have to concentrate on Evolution.

Apes have 24 chromosomes, humans have 23. Evolution predicts that, because humans and apes share a common ancestor, one of our chromosomes will be made from two ape chromosomes joined together. This means that whereas a normal chromosome is made up of a telomere on each end (ENDchromosomestuffDNE) one human chromosome would be of the form ENDchromosomeDNEENDchromosomeDNE). This prediction was made before the human genome project.

Consider for a moment how unlikely this is to be the case if we didn't share a common ancestor with apes.

H=Humans
C=Chimpanzees
G=Gorillas
O=Orangutans

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

As you can see, the human chromosome is made up of two ape chromosomes. Coincidence?

When a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it doesn't make a sound.Prove it.

Originally posted by RLI Rides Again
*snip*

God designed it that way, just because we can predict it, it means nothing, it means that God's design is so well designed that it's very predictable, once we understand it.

Honestly, no amount of facts and figures and proofs or logic can dispel the idea that God is responsible for it all.

The simple point is that God is entirely irrelevant since we can say nothing about Her, regardless of who's God we're referring to.

It doesn't matter whether She exists or not so there's no point trying to second-guess Her by making laws based on what She might or might not have said.

If someone tries to convince you of God's existence, that's all you need to say - it's very effective in my experience because as soon as they try to actually say anything about God, as opposed to asking inane questions about science, they can easily be shot down.

Put the burden of proof on them, otherwise, since it's irrelevant, dispel the issue from your mind.

EDIT: I put 'She/Her' just to make a change

actually dogs and cats are proof of evolution in action.Every breed was developed artificially by selective breeding weeding out undesireable traits and allowing the fit to survive.It happened and we forced it and it's undeniable proof of evolution in action.

God designed it that way, just because we can predict it, it means nothing, it means that God's design is so well designed that it's very predictable, once we understand it.

Honestly, no amount of facts and figures and proofs or logic can dispel the idea that God is responsible for it all.

The simple point is that God is entirely irrelevant since we can say nothing about Her, regardless of who's God we're referring to.

It doesn't matter whether She exists or not so there's no point trying to second-guess Her by making laws based on what She might or might not have said.

If someone tries to convince you of God's existence, that's all you need to say - it's very effective in my experience because as soon as they try to actually say anything about God, as opposed to asking inane questions about science, they can easily be shot down.

Put the burden of proof on them, otherwise, since it's irrelevant, dispel the issue from your mind.

EDIT: I put 'She/Her' just to make a changeBut the point is that there are no hints pointing at God's existence. And then there is also the fact that folks in ancient times did not believe in such a God. So why should anybody today?

But the point is that there are no hints pointing at God's existence. And then there is also the fact that folks in ancient times did not believe in such a God. So why should anybody today?

Why does it matter to you if an individual chooses to believe in God.

What does matter is that there are laws that actually affect us posited on the idea that a God exists.

Fight those,

...and the way to fight them is to ask these people to prove that any law complies with God's intention, to ask who are they to believe they can even know God's intention since God is, in most religions, unknowable.

That's not even starting with the question of whether their God is the right God.

Put the burden of proof where it belongs.

Put the burden of proof where it belongs.I do. If someone claims that there is a God while there is no indication for that, then the one making the claim should come up with something substantial.

Why does it matter to you if an individual chooses to believe in God.Because these miserable people tend to spread their misery around.

The best way to compare the merits of Creationism and Evolution is to test the predictions they make.

No - the best way is to compare the predictions they and the billions of other theories on the diversity of life make. First get rid of the false dichotomy. Then compare the value of their predictions.
People should get it through their heads that it is not a matter of evolution vs creationism. That attacking evolution does not make your own pet theory automatically right. That you need to argue in favour of your own theory.

And that is of course where creationism sofar fails miserably.

Because these miserable people tend to spread their misery around.

I'm sure they say the same about you :)

The point is that trying to prove God doesn't exist through logic and science is pointless because God is not beholden to science or logic, whether god exists or not.

God is not beholden to science or logicaccording to whom?

I'm sure they say the same about you :)

The point is that trying to prove God doesn't exist through logic and science is pointless because God is not beholden to science or logic, whether god exists or not.Folks who claim that there is a god must be able to show the basis for their claim. And we all know that there is no basis except the bible. And th bible is just fabricated stuff almost randomly pieced together out of all kinds of traditions.

No - the best way is to compare the predictions they and the billions of other theories on the diversity of life make. First get rid of the false dichotomy. Then compare the value of their predictions.
People should get it through their heads that it is not a matter of evolution vs creationism. That attacking evolution does not make your own pet theory automatically right. That you need to argue in favour of your own theory.

And that is of course where creationism sofar fails miserably.

I said that comparing their predictions was the best way to "compare the merits of Creationism and Evolution". That wasn't intended to rule out alternatives.

according to whom?

Folks who claim that there is a god must be able to show the basis for their claim. And we all know that there is no basis except the bible. And th bible is just fabricated stuff almost randomly pieced together out of all kinds of traditions.

Logic and science implies parameters or rules and God has no parameters or rules, God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent - admittedly talking about Judaeo-Christian God here. What proof do I have, none but I can believe what I want to believe and no amount of logic or science will stop me if that's that's how I feel - and believe me, I don't.

Why must people show basis for the belief in God - they don't, it's a matter of faith. What people must prove is why we should base any law on what we, as fallible humans, claim any God says or thinks.

Take religion from individuals? Why? Take religion out of law, yes please.

I do not deny the fact that species adapt to their environment at all. This observable. And of course we breed a wide a variety of dogs and cats.

Yet I don't believe this is a proof of evolution, unless we're using that term in some way I'm not familiar with. We can breed dogs and fruitflies all we want, and we will not make the dog a fruit fly or the fruit fly a dog. To do that, we would have to do some rather interesting and very improbable genetic splicing :fluffle: I think the dog would come out on top of that one anyways.

We cannot observe a fish becoming a lizard. I know that there are lungfish and frogs, but we have not observed the changes from one type of animal into another.

As a creationist, I believe that the species we can observe adapting (including humans) are DESIGNED to be able to adapt to their environment, and will continue to do so without becoming another kind of creature. Can I prove this? Not with any kind of scientific testing.

I found the information about the fruitflies interesting and I would like a link.

I said that comparing their predictions was the best way to "compare the merits of Creationism and Evolution". That wasn't intended to rule out alternatives.

I know. Unfortunately the propogandamachine of the creationists has been so efficient that even mentioning that such a comparison should be made aids their goal.

Yet I don't believe this is a proof of evolution, unless we're using that term in some way I'm not familiar with. We can breed dogs and fruitflies all we want, and we will not make the dog a fruit fly or the fruit fly a dog. To do that, we would have to do some rather interesting and very improbable genetic splicing :fluffle: I think the dog would come out on top of that one anyways.

So.. if one were to let dogs adapt for a few billion years, adding adaptation to adaptation, and then bring them back to this time .. you believe they would still be able to breed with poodles ?

God has no parameters or rulesBecause you say so?

- admittedly talking about Judaeo-Christian God here.And that's your problem.

I do not deny the fact that species adapt to their environment at all. This observable. And of course we breed a wide a variety of dogs and cats.

Yet I don't believe this is a proof of evolution, unless we're using that term in some way I'm not familiar with. We can breed dogs and fruitflies all we want, and we will not make the dog a fruit fly or the fruit fly a dog. To do that, we would have to do some rather interesting and very improbable genetic splicing :fluffle: I think the dog would come out on top of that one anyways.

We cannot observe a fish becoming a lizard. I know that there are lungfish and frogs, but we have not observed the changes from one type of animal into another.

As a creationist, I believe that the species we can observe adapting (including humans) are DESIGNED to be able to adapt to their environment, and will continue to do so without becoming another kind of creature. Can I prove this? Not with any kind of scientific testing.

I found the information about the fruitflies interesting and I would like a link.

Do you not think there's a disparity in saying you don't believe in evolution because you cannot 'observe', despite all the evidence to the contrary, yet believe in a God you cannot observe with no evidence to the [opposite of contrary]?

You can neither observe god nor prove he exists, why not apply the same 'logic'?

Because you say so?

No - because those who believe in God say so. If God creates the rules and parameters then God is above them.

And that's your problem.

I think the problem is that you're misreading my point.

No - because those who believe in God say so.And that makes it true?

After reading this thread for a while, I've realised something, this thread shows how creation truly fails on many fronts in a debate from a scientific standpoint, though it might hold up in a mythological or philosophical debate about human origins...

Here's why I believe creation fails after reading this thread and others.

Feel free to contradict anything I say but this is simply how I view it after reading a number of evolution vs creation debates here on NSG.

1 - there are too many religions which embrace different gods.

2 - because those religions embrace different gods, there is no consistency in the nature of the god(s).

3 - from the different religions we have different stories of creation. Those stories often include more than one god should the religion be polytheistic like Hinduism.

4 - due to the fact that there is more than one potential god, we don't know who the "true" creator is because each follower of a different god will claim that theirs is the ultimate creator.

5 - creation tends to focus on Judeo-Christian mythology, which excludes all other potential answers while it claims to be the right one despite that there are many others, which can be equally as valid given that they are dismissed as myths by those who don't believe simply because it doesn't call into the traditional definition of "creation" as Christians and Jews are taught.

6 - too many of creation's answers lie with "it's because god did it" or "because god said so." It's hard to follow because we don't know which god you are truly talking about. Even if you're referring to the Judeo-Christian god, we still come back to the point that if this god exists than others may as well because you can't say that one god exists while no others do. If you can believe that your god exists then others can believe that theirs truly exists as well.

7 - evolution is one theory but despite changing over time, it is the core theory of existence that all scientists can generally agree upon, though some might dispute certain elements based upon the interpretation of current evidence and knowledge.

8 - if god(s) is (are) the ultimate creator(s), then which religion is right about where we came from? This returns to point #1 but it's a fair question.

9. Creation cannot be tested. Claims that the earth is older than the sun for instance are in complete disagreement with our knowledge of astronomy - but since God could have just done it anyway that does not prove anything.
That God does not have to play by the rules however also means that the story of creation can not be used to increase our knowledge of the universe.

I know most people accept evolution on these forums and I have a good way to increase the power of an evolutionary argument.

This a true example

Insects infested my house.
We set traps, they die.
Within two years the traps have no effect.
An exterminator confirms that the insects are the same species.
The only explanation for this is localized evolution.

The insects with the genetic mutation of trap resistance survived and passed the trait on to their offspring. The high reproductive rate of the insects allowed the entire species to change with in a few generations.


Can any point out any holes in this argument?
It's certainly a change in allelic frequency within the population, but it's not definitely evolution. You've given a classic example of allopatric speciation but failed to mention whether the insects in your house are still able to produce viable offspring with the original insects. You also haven't mentioned whether the allele or alleles that contribute to this resistance were already present in the population or whether it was a mutation specific to one or a small group of the insects within the house. It's a good example of natural selection, but so is the higher prevalence of the faulty HbS in sickle cell anaemia in malaria-infested regions of Africa, or the greater frequency of cystic fibrosis amongst Europeans. To my mind, the deal clincher with this is the viable offspring option, as there still exist insects of the original species external to the house. At a push it might be classed as a sub-species if the allele is only present in those insects and nowhere else.

Sorry if that's been covered, this thread's a bit tl;dr for me.

I think that those that see a conflict between religion and science (on either side) don't have a clue about either.

There is no conflict between religion and evolutionary theory any more than there's a conflict between the earth going around the sun rather than the sun going around the earth.

God speaks in parables. God has always spoken in parables since God doesn't change. The parable in Genesis 1 is a very good description of the "big bang" and the development of the earth. As close as any other parable in the religious writings to the truth trying to be conveyed. And better than Hawkings can explain the origins of the earth to common people. What good would it do to have God give a bunch of Bedouins a 21st century physics or biology book? What good would it do God to give me (or 99% of the people on NS) a 21st century physics or biology book? You don't explain things to kindergarteners in university terms.

As far as "different" Gods among different religions. "In my father's house are many rooms". Different cultures see different dimensions of God. Different people see different dimensions of you. Some see you as a worker, son/daughter, student, parent, club member, ........... all of the different roles you play. So why shouldn't God be seen by different peoples in different ways? If you study the religions of the world you will find a common foundation.

The whole argument of a conflict between religion and science shows ignorance on the part of the person who makes it, regardless of which side they are on.

God speaks in parables.You mean those who made up and wrote down the god-stuff loved to confuse their readers by parables?
Of course there is no real conflict between science and religion. That is because religion is insubstantial.

Well, what I've come to the conclusion of is essentially this:

Science is a rock, Religion is a cloud of smoke. You try to apply (or throw. :P) Science to Religion, and it passes right through because Religion all but intangible to the Scientific Method.

Religion, unfortunately, has a great effect on Science (See Stem Cell research for examples) and overall clouds us with ignorance, which is disappointing but to be expected, anyway.

Evolution version "Creationism" is much the same way. The problem lies in that its just a simple matter of "Because God did it/made it so/threw the right pie" and everything is explainable... but in truth really doesn't explain anything at all.

I know most people accept evolution on these forums and I have a good way to increase the power of an evolutionary argument.

This a true example

Insects infested my house.
We set traps, they die.
Within two years the traps have no effect.
An exterminator confirms that the insects are the same species.
The only explanation for this is localized evolution.

The insects with the genetic mutation of trap resistance survived and passed the trait on to their offspring. The high reproductive rate of the insects allowed the entire species to change with in a few generations.


Can any point out any holes in this argument?
Yeah i can point out a hole. This proves that insects communicate with each other beacause like you said, there were different traps.

I do not deny the fact that species adapt to their environment at all. This observable. And of course we breed a wide a variety of dogs and cats.

Yet I don't believe this is a proof of evolution, unless we're using that term in some way I'm not familiar with. We can breed dogs and fruitflies all we want, and we will not make the dog a fruit fly or the fruit fly a dog. To do that, we would have to do some rather interesting and very improbable genetic splicing :fluffle: I think the dog would come out on top of that one anyways.

We cannot observe a fish becoming a lizard. I know that there are lungfish and frogs, but we have not observed the changes from one type of animal into another.

As a creationist, I believe that the species we can observe adapting (including humans) are DESIGNED to be able to adapt to their environment, and will continue to do so without becoming another kind of creature. Can I prove this? Not with any kind of scientific testing.

I found the information about the fruitflies interesting and I would like a link.

I think the problem here is that people think that species actually exist anywhere other than in the human mind. Species is entirely a concept that we made up. In nature things just aren't that simple. There are no neat little boxes to put types of animals in. Its why scientists are having so much trouble defining species as a concept.

The definition of species is basically completely dead when referring to bacteria as they don't "breed" in the sense that we do. Alternatively how do you define a species for a string of interbreeding populations where the individuals at the furthest extremes can't interbreed but the individuals at each step can interbreed with their neighbouring populations.etc etc.. its all summed up nicely in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_Problem but the point is that the species concept just doesn't describe what we see in nature.

If in nature there are no "types" of animals just a punctuated continuum of individuals then the whole delineation between micro and macro evolution is also a completely constructed idea. It doesn't exist.


as an aside:
I work in a microbiology lab and the thing that constantly amazes me is how often the "impossible" actually happens. Say you have an event that is 1 in a billion of happening. Well there are on average about a billion bacteria in every gram... yes thats right gram of soil. Many of these bacteria have generation times of around 3-4 hrs though more commonly a lot longer days maybe. So an event that you would consider improbable happens every minute of every day in every kilo of soil around us.... its those kinds of numbers that make evolution able to do all sorts of "impossible" things..

from Barringtonia:
Do you not think there's a disparity in saying you don't believe in evolution because you cannot 'observe', despite all the evidence to the contrary, yet believe in a God you cannot observe with no evidence to the [opposite of contrary]?

You can neither observe god nor prove he exists, why not apply the same 'logic'?

I did not say that we cannot prove that God exists. I said that we cannot prove that He designed creatures to adapt to their environment with any kind of scientific testing. There are other methodologies for proving things, such as circumstantial evidence. Quite a number of cosmologists (according to one article I've read recently) can't quite prove that the universe was intelligently designed, but certainly feel it looks that way.

If you eliminate the supposedly observable phenonema of species adapting to their environments as proof of evolution, then the remainder of all the theories (as far as I've heard and seen) is circumstantial evidence. So we're all stuck in the same boat, so to speak.

At least we Creationists and the Evolutionists have this in common (enter a Matrix reference): unlike the mystics, we both believe the spoon exists. The difference is that Creationists believe the spoon implies the existence of ice cream. :)

I don't think arguing about evolution vs creation is very helpful to anyone. I believe that people are attracted to whatever myth (which I define here as a story which explains the nature of man and his environment) they feel comfortable with, for whatever the reason this is so.

I did not say that we cannot prove that God exists.

Wait, are you saying you can prove that God exists?

At least we Creationists and the Evolutionists have this in common (enter a Matrix reference): unlike the mystics, we both believe the spoon exists. The difference is that Creationists believe the spoon implies the existence of ice cream. :)

I think a better analogy is that both Creationists and Evolutionists believe that Easter Eggs exist. The difference is that Creationists believe the Easter Egg implies the existence of the Easter Bunny.

I don't think arguing about evolution vs creation is very helpful to anyone. I believe that people are attracted to whatever myth (which I define here as a story which explains the nature of man and his environment) they feel comfortable with, for whatever the reason this is so.

I'm happy for this to be the case but can you therefore accept that creationism does not belong in the science class, as it has nothing to say scientifically. It belongs in religious studies, possibly history by default and that's about it?

If you eliminate the supposedly observable phenonema of species adapting to their environments as proof of evolution, then the remainder of all the theories (as far as I've heard and seen) is circumstantial evidence. So we're all stuck in the same boat, so to speak.

Not at all: in terms of evidence, Evolution is in a luxury cruise liner, sipping martinis and seducing ravishing blonds, while Creationism is clutching a small, broken twig, insisting over and over again that it's a boat as it gradually sinks below the waves.

Did you see my post of human and ape chromosomes? That is very solid evidence, and there's more like it.

Not as long as the adaption is a genetic one. Getting a sun tan isn't evolution, increased melanin production is.
Ahhhhh...

Called adaptation NOT evolution. Evolution is one species transforming to another. Skin Tanning is not evolution it's adaptation.

Called adaptation NOT evolution. Evolution is one species transforming to another. Skin Tanning is not evolution it's adaptation.

Nope, try again. Adaptation is part of evolution.

Evolution is one species transforming to another.

Wrong.

Nope, try again. Adaptation is part of evolution.it is not. individual adaption during the individual's lifetime has NOTHING to do with evolution.

it is not. individual adaption during the individual's lifetime has NOTHING to do with evolution.

Unless it's genetic. See RLI's post.

Unless it's genetic. See RLI's post."Unless it's genetic" means what? only if changes in an individual's genome in cells of the reproductive cycle (sperms and eggs) during its lifetime are carried into the next generation they become relevant in respect to evolution. otherwise it is of no importance at all.

Called adaptation NOT evolution. Evolution is one species transforming to another. Skin Tanning is not evolution it's adaptation.

Someone's been playing a bit too much Pokemon...:rolleyes:

"Unless it's genetic" means what? only if changes in an individual's genome in cells of the reproductive cycle (sperms and eggs) during its lifetime are carried into the next generation they become relevant in respect to evolution. otherwise it is of no importance at all.

Not necessarily, as demonstrated by viruses and various infectious cancers. Those stem from mutations in the somatic cells.

Not necessarily, as demonstrated by viruses and various infectious cancers. Those stem from mutations in the somatic cells.

viruses aren't considered living things by biologists.

Not necessarily, as demonstrated by viruses and various infectious cancers. Those stem from mutations in the somatic cells.and? how does that influence the genetic setup of the subsequent generation?

viruses aren't considered living things by biologists.

Actually, half wrong. They are not considered organisms. Slight, insignificant, unnoticeable difference for the most post part. They do, however, have many aspects that mimic living organisms, but lack others. They are an example of something that is borderline.

However, that doesn't mean they can't evolve. Nor does it refer to the point he was trying to make.


Called adaptation NOT evolution. Evolution is one species transforming to another. Skin Tanning is not evolution it's adaptation.


That's evolution, mate.

Think of it more like this:

Species change is a result of evolution, not what evolution is. To give you an idea, new species are formed when a certain population become genetically different enough from the original population as to not be able to interbreed(For the most part-there are some sticky situations which arise with this definition, but for the most part it holds true). This is due to adaption of said population to new environments, as well as isolation of genetic material being passed in said population. After many adaptions to the general genetic code, the coding will be different enough from the original population as to be considered a new species. There is still a period of time when evolution is occurring and when they are not a new species. It's not some magical, instantaneous process that some opponents paint it to be, but instead a gradual, steady, and slow process with the eventual outcome being new species, but not it's purpose.

it is not. individual adaption during the individual's lifetime has NOTHING to do with evolution.

How many insects have you met that have an adult life of more than two years? I see your point though.

Adaptation is a mechanism of evolution, so it's kind of a little piece of the evolutionary pie.
If the insects in Joethesandwich's house adapt and change for long enough that they become incapable of breeding with the original insect stock, then they have become a new species, and their evolution is more apparent.

1) Gravity.
2) Evolution.
3) Climate Change.

I like how you put gravity first. :p

and? how does that influence the genetic setup of the subsequent generation?

...

What, you think that viruses and infectious cancers don't have generations or something?

viruses aren't considered living things by biologists.

Viruses, along with gravity, are strange things indeed…

Called adaptation NOT evolution. Evolution is one species transforming to another. Skin Tanning is not evolution it's adaptation.

Evolution eventually results in one species gradually becoming another…
Play more Starcraft ;)

Viruses, along with gravity, are strange things indeed…

The extremely funny thing is, the Theory of Evolution has more backing it up than any current theory involving gravity(God damn quantum mechanics and relativity and other nonsense). Wait, that's actually depressing if you think about it.

The extremely funny thing is, the Theory of Evolution has more backing it up than any current theory involving gravity(God damn quantum mechanics and relativity and other nonsense). Wait, that's actually depressing if you think about it.

Yeah. We experience gravity constantly, but cannot explain it. Yet no one truly thinks that it doesn't exist.
Yet things we can easily explain and produce evidence for, say, evolution and climate change (thanks Neesika), are often treated as little more than wild conjectures.

On that subject: "This so-called 'Evolution' is only a theory!!". So? GRAVITY is only a theory!!!!

Alright, I think I'm done now.

The extremely funny thing is, the Theory of Evolution has more backing it up than any current theory involving gravity(God damn quantum mechanics and relativity and other nonsense). Wait, that's actually depressing if you think about it.

Not really. The Theory of Evolution started with Darwin. GR and QM are early-to-mid 1900s. So there's been a bit more time to lay the foundations. And I should point out that there are credible, respected physicists who disagree with QM and are working to disprove, and have been since it came out. It's still the best theory we have, right now, and no one's been able to prove it wrong, but EVERY theory is going to have credible, respected detractors. In many ways those detractors help the theory more than they harm it, if it's a good one, by continuing to experiment on it in hopes of disproving it, and ending up adding more support to it.

How about everyone responding to my comment, stop correcting my wording and actually give examples of what you are talking about. Just saying "no your wrong" In my opinion makes you look more ignorant than you think I am and really adds no scientific value to the debate. Hmmm?

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/feature5/?fs=www3.nationalgeographic.com&fs=plasma.nationalgeographic.com

So how does this prove evolution exactly? Just talks about pigmes hunting and what not. (Off topic) I think he focuses on imagery as much the pigmes!

National Geographic is to Creationists what the Bible is to Evolutionists - irrelevant and full of lies.

You see it in every Creationist video - piles of NG covers, instantly dismissed with incredulity.

"Man comes from apes? Yet in the Bible it clearly says God created man. In Genesis it says 'And God created man in his own image'. So you see, man could not come from the ape. Have you seen an ape turn into a man, ah ha ha ha, no that would be silly wouldn't it."

On and on and on....

National Geographic is to Creationists what the Bible is to Evolutionists - irrelevant and full of lies.

You see it in every Creationist video - piles of NG covers, instantly dismissed with incredulity.

"Man comes from apes? Yet in the Bible it clearly says God created man. In Genesis it says 'And God created man in his own image'. So you see, man could not come from the ape. Have you seen an ape turn into a man, ah ha ha ha, no that would be silly wouldn't it."

On and on and on....

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/CircularReasoning.gif

lol, how many people come on to these forums and think they will be the ones that convince others that their view on the world is the only correct one.

ah, you are so wise i will now believe in evolution until the next post that somehow explains to me that God is real. or the ever becoming more popular mixed theory.

lol, how many people come on to these forums and think they will be the ones that convince others that their view on the world is the only correct one.

ah, you are so wise i will now believe in evolution until the next post that somehow explains to me that God is real. or the ever becoming more popular mixed theory.

Or the rather silly and pointless "Me no undrstandy evilutions, me pray jeebus n blieve bibble only" that most the recent waves of creationist trolls seem to spew forth.

If evolution doesn't exist, why do people need to get flu shots once a year?

If evolution doesn't exist, why do people need to get flu shots once a year?

i have never had a flu shot, or the flu. so people don't need to get the flu shot

i have never had a flu shot, or the flu. so people don't need to get the flu shot

The question still stands, though it must be modified into: if microevolution does not exist, then why does the influenza virus mutate sufficiently to require the development of a new vaccine every year?

Thing is, most sane, rational people accept microevolution. It's macro that they generally can't wrap their head around.

Thing is, most sane, rational people accept microevolution. It's macro that they generally can't wrap their head around.

I don't understand why there's this delineation between micro and macro - they're the same exact thing.

It may be I don't really know what macro entails that's any different to micro but it seems to me like the trouble is:

I can understand how you make tarmac and I understand how you can put that tarmac on a flat surface, what I don't understand is how there's a road from New York to Chicago.

I don't understand why there's this delineation between micro and macro - they're the same exact thing.

It may be I don't really know what macro entails that's any different to micro but it seems to me like the trouble is:

I can understand how you make tarmac and I understand how you can put that tarmac on a flat surface, what I don't understand is how there's a road from New York to Chicago.

That's just it though. They are exactly the same. The concept of a species is, in many ways, an arbitrary and man-made classification.

I know most people accept evolution on these forums and I have a good way to increase the power of an evolutionary argument.

This a true example

Insects infested my house.
We set traps, they die.
Within two years the traps have no effect.
An exterminator confirms that the insects are the same species.
The only explanation for this is localized evolution.

The insects with the genetic mutation of trap resistance survived and passed the trait on to their offspring. The high reproductive rate of the insects allowed the entire species to change with in a few generations.


Can any point out any holes in this argument?

we already know microevolution exists. it's already been proved. this is an example.

the greater debate is macroevolution and this example of microevolution does nothing to further that debate.

we already know microevolution exists. it's already been proved. this is an example.

the greater debate is macroevolution and this example of microevolution does nothing to further that debate.

So I suppose that vast amounts of research into the verifiable fact that new species have arisen from old species is not to be seen as "macro" evolution? Or the appearance of the nylon bacteria, whose existence is only explainable by evolution, is not enough.

Ho-well.

So I suppose that vast amounts of research into the verifiable fact that new species have arisen from old species is not to be seen as "macro" evolution? Or the appearance of the nylon bacteria, whose existence is only explainable by evolution, is not enough.

Ho-well.

The idea of microevolution is intraspecial - one species adapting to its environment, ie the exampe. Macroevolution is interspecial - the idea of, lets use a good example, a fish evolving into a man. The example does nothing to prove the latter, only the former.

"...the verifiable fact that new species have arisen from old species..." - interspecial

The idea of microevolution is intraspecial - one species adapting to its environment, ie the exampe. Macroevolution is interspecial - the idea of, lets use a good example, a fish evolving into a man. The example does nothing to prove the latter, only the former.

Yes, but that still doesn't say anything about new species arising, which have.

For instance, new species of flies produced in the laboratory have as much genetic difference as between man and chimpanzees. And for the record, as far as animals go, Chimpanzees and Humans are almost identical as far as physiology goes.

Yes, but that still doesn't say anything about new species arising, which have.

For instance, new species of flies produced in the laboratory have as much genetic difference as between man and chimpanzees. And for the record, as far as animals go, Chimpanzees and Humans are almost identical as far as physiology goes.

New species arising from old species is still interspecial. They're two different species, ergo interspecial.

Humans and chimpanzees are also classified as two species as well; though they are classified under the same genus.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said.. but there is no micro/macro evolution there is just evolution. Species, as has been pointed out before, is purely a man made delineation. It helps us group populations together so that they are manageable to study but actually holds no real meaning in the natural world.

Evolution is about population studies... species is just a useful tool for defining populations that are in some way genetically separate... or at least more separate from individuals who are not of that species than those within the species. Thats it. It holds no magical barrier. There isn't some invisible force that says you can evolve this far... but no further.. you must go back.

There is no evolutionary police force!!

So you're telling me that, even though famous entomologists, biologists, and scientists from many different biological fields know there to be two different sorts of evolution, macro and micro evolution is a fraud?

:rolleyes:

EDIT: 2 months absolved of NSG and the warpage is still this bad... :(

we already know microevolution exists. it's already been proved. this is an example.

the greater debate is macroevolution and this example of microevolution does nothing to further that debate.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said.. but there is no micro/macro evolution there is just evolution. Species, as has been pointed out before, is purely a man made delineation. It helps us group populations together so that they are manageable to study but actually holds no real meaning in the natural world.

Evolution is about population studies... species is just a useful tool for defining populations that are in some way genetically separate... or at least more separate from individuals who are not of that species than those within the species. Thats it. It holds no magical barrier. There isn't some invisible force that says you can evolve this far... but no further.. you must go back.

There is no evolutionary police force!!

Ergo, macroevolution has been shown to be true, as new species have arisen from old.



Er... same family, not genus. Chimpanzees are of the genus Pan, whereas humans are of the genus Homo. However, we are of the family Hominidae.

you'd probably know that better than i... i've been a few years removed from biology, and i've pushed that out for a year of a fair amount of chemistry work

New species arising from old species is still interspecial. They're two different species, ergo interspecial.

Ergo, macroevolution has been shown to be true, as new species have arisen from old.


Humans and chimpanzees are also classified as two species as well; though they are classified under the same genus.

Er... same family, not genus. Chimpanzees are of the genus Pan, whereas humans are of the genus Homo. However, we are of the family Hominidae.

Ergo, macroevolution has been shown to be true, as new species have arisen from old.

But... the whole point I was trying to make was that the example that the OP listed was proof of micro, and not macro, evolution.

EDIT: read my other post above. damn warpage...

So you're telling me that, even though famous entomologists, biologists, and scientists from many different biological fields know there to be two different sorts of evolution, macro and micro evolution is a fraud?

:rolleyes:


More like as being misleading. In short, there is no difference whatsoever between the two. They describe certain aspects of the evolution, but are not rules there of.


EDIT: 2 months absolved of NSG and the warpage is still this bad... :(

Some things never change.

simple...Jesus made the bugs magic...

http://www.geocities.com/anuragbansal_uor/naked_lunch21.jpg

Say, Mithras ... would you rub some of this powder on my lips?

But... the whole point I was trying to make was that the example that the OP listed was proof of micro, and not macro, evolution.

EDIT: read my other post above. damn warpage...

Oh, gotchya. Well, it may not be so. It is possible that the insects were of a new species, or not depending.

So you're telling me that, even though famous entomologists, biologists, and scientists from many different biological fields know there to be two different sorts of evolution, macro and micro evolution is a fraud?

:rolleyes:

EDIT: 2 months absolved of NSG and the warpage is still this bad... :(

They are not different SORTS of evolution they are different parts of the SAME thing. The way you study it is different. The same way you study micro/macro economics is different... but to say that microeconomics does not fall on a spectrum of economics that goes all the way up to macro economics would be silly.

Its the same in evolutionary biology. People study micro evolution, people study macro evolution... but they are all just evolution.. they aren't separate things.. just different regions of the same spectrum.

Have a look at the field of microbiology. Species made a lot of sense when you were using them to describe a set of characteristics of a bunch of bacteria that were all the same. Problem is that bacteria can pass genetic material around and these artificial species barriers set up by people make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Bacteria of totally different families let alone genera or species can simply pass genetic material to another bacteria... how is there ever going to be a species barrier when they can do that.

There are even examples of bacteria passing their genetic material to plants. 10%+ of the human genome used to at some point be viral DNA.. that pretty cross species ;)

If evolution doesn't exist, why do people need to get flu shots once a year?

The Computer Wore Menace Shoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Computer_Wore_Menace_Shoes), third paragraph.