Jump to content

Evolution


Peregrine

Recommended Posts

  Quote
If the THEORY of evolution does not mentio the origins of the first life, how can you possible believe in it.

 

You are confusing natural selection with randomness again. Natural selection is a solution to the problem "why is the universe like it is", and a better one than "intelligent designer" or "random chance". Why? Because an intelligent designer simply creates a bigger, harder question, viz.: Where did the intelligent designer come from? Random chance is no better at describing how the universe became what we see, either, because (as Intelligent Designers are quick to point out) it is highly improbable that it would exist in its present form given nothing but randomness. Natural Selection is a method whereby complexity comes out of simplicity, thus solving the pre-nineteenth century conundrum of how something as complex as the universe could come to exist (previous to natural selection the only answer humans could think of was "from something more complex", hence a designer).

 

Natural selection means that things evolve through traits that helped survival and reproduction, this gets done by gene sifting. Through this process micro and macro evolution occurs through time driven by the species, not some type of God. This means no Intelligent designer is needed to create a nylon bug, or liger. Is it saying there is no god? No thats impossible to say, thats like saying there are no Pink unicorns, Its impossible to disprove a negative. Science can only show reality, not another realm. If you require something else that just scratches the surface in terms of evolution, go to a library and read a book about it; Evolution isn't something that you can answer within short answers and one-liners.

 

Right how does life come from non life: Here goes my shot at it as I can recall from lectures and classes.

 

15 billion years ago: Big bang - inflation- black hole- blah blah blah Expansion blah blah blah gravity does its thing, hydrogen and helium form stars, some big, some small, they all die and cast off a wealth of elements, and again gravity does its thing, and more stars are born, and more stars die and the cycle repeats. The leftovers from star formation formed the planets and other orbiting clumpage,- Cosmic dust clumps together our planets- Earth is being formed by things being slammed into it, it was molten.

 

The theory is that life started from non living materials, and that all living entities today originated from one single living entity 4 billion years ago, as soon as the conditions of earth was ready life began.

 

Organic compounds are in living entities:

1. Amino Acids - they make protein

2. Nucleic acids - DNA and RNA

3. carbohydrates - sugars

4. Lipids - fats, steroids

 

The early earth was entirely inorganic, so where did the stuff of life(organic compounds) come from? early earth had no oxygen or nearly non which helped since oxygen tears apart compounds. Early earth had these gases - hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. There was no oxidizing atmosphere.

 

Miller, a scientist, experimented to see if spontaneous life would start. He made early earth conditions with primitive means, he actually spontaneously created all organic compounds, nucleotides which are the backbones of DNA and RNA. There now appears to be no problem at all for organic properties to arise from non organic material.

 

Yes DNA is very complex and yes it is amazing how elegant and beautifully some biological systems work. Almost all these "scientists" seem to think that the first ever "life forms", if we would even call them that, were much like the ones we have today. No one believes that somehow a bunch of organic compounds just mixed together and gave rise to a complete cell with nucleic acids, membranes and proteins. It was probably something much simpler than that, that gradually, through the process of evolution by natural selection, increased in sophistication.

 

Most likely some sort of self-replicating molecule arose. Chemists have been able to create self-replicating systems using inorganic compounds. Gradually, through random mutations and selection, the complexity increased. Perhaps it could be argued that the probability of this happening is very slim. That might be true. But it only had to happen once. Also the fact remains that the probability is greater than 0.

 

Now what is the probability that life was created by an tri-omni entity? We do not even have a single shred of empirical evidence that such a being exists. The best "evidence" that most theists can come up with are a few dubious ancient texts. It is on the theists to show that their explanation is better. Simply saying that "God did it" explains next to nothing. How did this God do it? How do we know that this God exists? How does this God interact with nature?

 

And those morons who continue to insist that random mutations cannot increase sophistication are complete and utter morons. It has been observed ad nauseum. Tell a person with cancer that mutations cannot increase complexity. Or scientists who have been working for nearly 30 years to find a cure for AIDS. These diseases are so hard to combat because they find ways to evade the body's defenses and the treatments that we administer. How do they evade these things? Through the random mutations that supposedly cannot ever be beneficial.

 

Last but not least there are also many things about life that are not consistent with the idea that a designer gave rise to them. Why do vestigal structures exist? Why is there so much non-coding DNA in our genome? DNA is digital information. Compared to our own digital information, most genomes are very poorly organized. In our genome, DNA that codes for proteins is scattered and interspersed between large areas of non-coding DNA. Ever heard of the "C-value" paradox? Some time ago, scientists were baffled by the fact that organisms like Salamanders had more DNA than humans. Surely, these creatures which are far less sophisticated than ourselves, could not require more instructions to build than us, right? As it turns out, Salamanders simply have much more in the way of non-coding DNA.

 

Dawkins uses an excellent analogy he calls "climbing Mount Improbable". Mount Improbable has a sheer cliff on one side, which is the phenomena that we wish to explain, such as the organ of sight (the eye), which seems almost impossibly difficult to imagine being created out of nothing (represented by the sheer cliff). On the other side of Mount Improbable is a steady, even gradient, whereby, rather than a leap of faith, we can progress slowly, by microscopic improvements, up the slope from ground level. This side represents natural selection, demonstrating how small random changes in this generation can build upon the cumulative best changes of the past, to create the bridge to the phenomena.

 

Does that help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I believe evolution is true but here's my argument against it:

 

Because humans have lived for so long without natural enemies but themselves, evolution should have stopped. Yet the length of the life of humans increases and increases. Our improved medications may have caused this but again, that would have stopped the evolution process. But even without medication a human can now live longer than 50 years ago, and in worse conditions ( this does not mean lifestyle but climate).

 

So this is agreeable: "natural selection" stopped for humans.

 

So Evolution at random completely relies on mutations now.

 

Also, we humans brake the process of evolution in most other species because we change their lives dramatically. This evolution which already was slow, we now slow it even more! We kill and eventually animals become extinct before the evolution process even gets a chance for a change.

 

evolution may have worked before humans, but now we stopped it, almost completely. and because evolution already took thousands of years before noticeable changes I think me may say we stopped the evolution process.

 

I dodn't say evolution wasn't true and that wasn't my argument, I think it doesn't work anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  n00biepl0x said:
I believe evolution is true but here's my argument against it:

 

Because humans have lived for so long without natural enemies but themselves, evolution should have stopped. Yet the length of the life of humans increases and increases. Our improved medications may have caused this but again, that would have stopped the evolution process. But even without medication a human can now live longer than 50 years ago, and in worse conditions ( this does not mean lifestyle but climate).

 

So this is agreeable: "natural selection" stopped for humans.

 

So Evolution at random completely relies on mutations now.

Conditions are still far from optimal. Specifics have changed (i.e. too much food available rather than not enough), but there remains plenty of room for improvement.

  Quote
Also, we humans brake the process of evolution in most other species because we change their lives dramatically. This evolution which already was slow, we now slow it even more! We kill and eventually animals become extinct before the evolution process even gets a chance for a change.
If significant numbers of species are becoming extinct, the logical implication is that the most adaptable ones are being selected for. Extinction is the ultimate manifestation of evolutionary failure. Further, both 'desirable' and 'undesirable' species are evolving at an increased rate due to human activity, although the adaptations may not be useful in the wild. See Artificial Selection and various types (1, 2) of resistance.
  Quote
evolution may have worked before humans, but now we stopped it, almost completely. and because evolution already took thousands of years before noticeable changes I think me may say we stopped the evolution process.

 

I dodn't say evolution wasn't true and that wasn't my argument, I think it doesn't work anymore.

It is also worth noting that, at least technically, we can intentionally improve our genetics. However, it is an understatement to say that both the potential for unintended consequences and the ethical implications are vast.

Finally, humans have available another type of evolution: Social.

 

EDIT REGARDING THE BELOW POST: I miss Peregrine too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That shows a complete lack of knowledge. Period.

Humans cannot stop evolution. That would be like humans trying to stop gravity.

  Quote
Because humans have lived for so long without natural enemies but themselves, evolution should have stopped.

That...that's moronic. Predators don't mean evolution. Evolution happens whether predators exist or not. Say one giraffe has a mutation where it's neck is three inches longer than normal that giraffe will then be able to eat leaves higher up on the tree that other giraffes can't, so if food is scarce, that giraffe will still be able to eat, and live. By living, the giraffe can reproduce, and all its children will have necks that are three inches longer. Nothing in that had anything to do with predators. Evolution in humans is working. I saw a movie called Idiocrasy recently. It was a horrible movie, but it had the right idea. Generally speaking, intelligent humans generally wait until 'the right time' to have children, and then, it's usually one. Stupid people generally f*** all the time and end up with a lot of kids. That shows that right now, Natural Selection favours idiocy, because the morons have more offspring. That is evolution whether you want to believe it or not.

 

  Quote
Yet the length of the life of humans increases and increases. Our improved medications may have caused this but again, that would have stopped the evolution process.

Our life expectancy has nothing to do with evolution. Humans have a lifespan of about 120-130 years. Outside influences determine the life expectancy such as disease, lack of food, war, etc. The reason we're living longer is because of advances in medicine not evolution, but medicine doesn't "stop evolution"

 

  Quote
So Evolution at random completely relies on mutations now.

...Evolution IS random mutations!!

:glare:

 

  Quote
Also, we humans brake the process of evolution in most other species because we change their lives dramatically.

I'm not even going to dignify it with an appropriate response.

 

  Quote
I dodn't say evolution wasn't true and that wasn't my argument, I think it doesn't work anymore.

 

Evolution has existed since the first self-replicating molecule and will always exist until the last replicating entity stops replicating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  ninja_lord666 said:
That shows a complete lack of knowledge. Period.

Humans cannot stop evolution. That would be like humans trying to stop gravity.

 

 

  Quote
So Evolution at random completely relies on mutations now.

...Evolution IS random mutations!!

:glare:

 

Evolution has existed since the first self-replicating molecule and will always exist until the last replicating entity stops replicating.

 

evolution is not about MUTATIONS but about slight changes. these you might call mutations, but I didn't know the appropriate word for it.

 

and you speak about evolution like it is a law of nature like gravity. evolution CAN be stopped, for example: cloning. Humans try to study animals by keeping them in a controlled environment and evolution is not supposed to be controlled. And still, because humans don't survive because they're "the fittest" but more by if they're born in a rich country or not, evolution has stopped for humans, whether you want it or not.

 

Natural selection does not favor idiocy: smarter animals always survive longer than the idiotic animals. But humans, however are... different and are not "controlled by evolution" in the same way.

 

And you said it yourself: war. Humans are the only species that kill they're own species in great number.

______________________________________

Abramul:

 

If significant numbers of species are becoming extinct, the logical implication is that the most adaptable ones are being selected for.

 

______________________________________

 

This statement isn't thought about well enough. It isn't logical that the animal WE kill is the weakest or the dumbest. We kill randomly for food, skin and other stuff. How is a tiger supposed to be resistant to a sniper rifle from a distance of 300 meters? Born with steel skin?

We may have killed the fastest and most adaptable tiger ever, just for money.

 

 

finally:

_____

Abramul:

Finally, humans have available another type of evolution: Social.

_____

 

 

Yes but this isn't ruled by natural selection, but by education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  n00biepl0x said:
evolution is not about MUTATIONS but about slight changes. these you might call mutations, but I didn't know the appropriate word for it.

Yes it is. Any change in DNA is a mutation, ANY change, and evolution IS changes in DNA.

 

  Quote
and you speak about evolution like it is a law of nature like gravity. evolution CAN be stopped, for example: cloning. Humans try to study animals by keeping them in a controlled environment and evolution is not supposed to be controlled.

Evolution is a law. Period. Evolution can't be stopped. Period. Cloning is not a natural thing. In fact, cloning is the opposite of a natural thing. You can't compare cloning with reproduction.

  Quote
And still, because humans don't survive because they're "the fittest" but more by if they're born in a rich country or not, evolution has stopped for humans, whether you want it or not.

I take back what I said earlier. THIS is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Whether or not you're rich has no affect on how well you reproduce. NONE! People without money don't all of a sudden loose sexual function. Seriously, do you even have a brain!?

 

  Quote
Natural selection does not favor idiocy: smarter animals always survive longer than the idiotic animals. But humans, however are... different and are not "controlled by evolution" in the same way.

I seriously doubt your ability to comprehend. I was talking about HUMANS not other animals. Human evolution doesn't determine, say, deer evolution. Just because the moron humans have more offspring doesn't mean the moron deer have more children; the moron deer die. The moron humans usually die from stupidity as well, but not before having seven kids.

 

  Quote
And you said it yourself: war. Humans are the only species that kill they're own species in great number.

So? War has nothing to do with war. If you could read words larger that three letters long you'd have read this:

  Quote
Outside Influences
War has no effect on evolution.

 

  Quote
This statement isn't thought about well enough. It isn't logical that the animal WE kill is the weakest or the dumbest. We kill randomly for food, skin and other stuff. How is a tiger supposed to be resistant to a sniper rifle from a distance of 300 meters? Born with steel skin?

We may have killed the fastest and most adaptable tiger ever, just for money.

Abramul's statement was well thought out. You're just ignorant. Humans aren't the only species that causes others to become extinct. Earth has been a home to over hundreds of trillions of organisms living on it at different point, over 90% over which are now extinct. Humans have brought extinction to about...a few hundred, at most, many of which were unknown plants and animals that were already driven near extinction by superior plants and animals. Humans are but a drop in the ocean compared to history. The few creatures we kill are FAR outweighed by the deaths at the hands of Natural Selection.

 

  Quote
Yes but this isn't ruled by natural selection, but by education.

Sooo...smart people are sociable, or are stupid people sociable? I know many smart, shy people, and many smart, outgoing people. I also know many stupid, shy people, and many stupid, outgoing people. Again, you're stupidity clouds the little judgment you have. Education doesn't effect sociability.

 

 

You seem to be confused about what evolution is. Evolution is random mutations of DNA. Whether or not they're desirable is determined by Natural Selection. Some mutations are helpful, like a bird having larger chest muscles, some have no affect like an elephant having a longer tail, and some are hurtful like a deer having one leg shorter then the rest. Evolution takes place in the genes not because of any outside influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  ninja_lord666 said:
  n00biepl0x said:
evolution is not about MUTATIONS but about slight changes. these you might call mutations, but I didn't know the appropriate word for it.

Yes it is. Any change in DNA is a mutation, ANY change, and evolution IS changes in DNA.

 

  Quote
and you speak about evolution like it is a law of nature like gravity. evolution CAN be stopped, for example: cloning. Humans try to study animals by keeping them in a controlled environment and evolution is not supposed to be controlled.

Evolution is a law. Period. Evolution can't be stopped. Period. Cloning is not a natural thing. In fact, cloning is the opposite of a natural thing. You can't compare cloning with reproduction.

  Quote
And still, because humans don't survive because they're "the fittest" but more by if they're born in a rich country or not, evolution has stopped for humans, whether you want it or not.

I take back what I said earlier. THIS is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Whether or not you're rich has no affect on how well you reproduce. NONE! People without money don't all of a sudden loose sexual function. Seriously, do you even have a brain!?

 

 

 

 

Your quite ignorant, think about it. If you are rich, your chances of survival are much better than if you are born in a poor family, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR DNA SAYS. Evolution is all about survival and reproduction. If you die before you are old enough to reproduce, then yes: people without money then don't even have had sexual function.

 

Evolution isn't a LAW, although it may seem like one to you. Evolution is a theory, gravity is a law.

 

and I know cloning isn't natural, but still humans do cloning and it still stops the effects of evolution.

 

 

And have you even read the first post? This thread is about arguments AGAINST evolution, I can think about much more argument FOR evolution but that's not what this thread is about, now is it?

 

And if evolution favors idiocy for humans, humans would be getting dumber, which the human race is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  n00biepl0x said:
<Nested quote removed>

Your quite ignorant, think about it. If you are rich, your chances of survival are much better than if you are born in a poor family, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR DNA SAYS. Evolution is all about survival and reproduction. If you die before you are old enough to reproduce, then yes: people without money then don't even have had sexual function.

So, affluence and birthrate should be positively correlated. Let's take a look:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/GDP_nominal_per_capita_world_map_IMF_figures_for_year_2006.png/800px-GDP_nominal_per_capita_world_map_IMF_figures_for_year_2006.png

It would appear that the correlation is, in fact, negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...