Evolution

[crazydave]

As far as a pre-universe goes, its more or less irrelevant. there is absolutely no way of knowing what happened before existance. If anyone, in this lifetime, can definitivly prove anything before the universe, I will call him god.

 

as far as evolution goes, people seem to polarize between intelegent design and evolution. But isn't Darwinian evolution a type of intelegent design? It is just natures way of makeing sure the things living in an ecosystem are abel to survive there.

[Marcus Wolfe]

Intelligent design suggests that something with the power of conscious thought and creativity is designing all life, the way engineers design machines. Evolution would be more like the machine designing new improvements for itself.

[Marxist ßastard]

Evolution would be more like the machine designing new improvements for itself.

Please only let trained professionals come up with analogies, thank you. It took me years to get where I'm at.

[ninja_lord666]

Evolution would be more like the machine designing new improvements for itself.

Hmm, I'll have to disagree with you. Evolution doesn't change itself; it changes the genomes of life.

[Marcus Wolfe]

When I said " Evolution would be more like the machine designing new improvements for itself." I meant that the machine would represent a species, and evolution is only the action of self improvement.

[Marxist ßastard]

No, self-improvement is going out and getting a tan. I don't know who told you this, but getting a tan is not evolution.

[Marcus Wolfe]

What if you're getting a tan on a species level? Would that be evolution? Hmm?

 

Okay, let me explain what I mean. Pretend that, instead of in Africa, man evolved in Eurasia and started off white. Man migrates south to Africa, why the sun really gets to him. Everybody gets a tan, but those with the best tan (the naturally darkest skin) survive long enough to reproduce. A few generations later, we have black people.

 

I know it happened the other way around, man evolved dark in Africa, went North and lost his tan, but my example was purely based on the mention of a tan.

[FritzDerochebrune]

First I want to say something about time. Time is just a thing used by man to understand everything around him. From the big bang till now, might just be one second. But it is also possible that while I'm typing this, a billion years have passed. The only thing we can use as time, is the earth's rotation around it's axis (day) and around the sun (year). But are these really days and years? Or merely a fraction of it? It is entirely plausible that the universe only exist 10.000 years, while that consists of millions of human years.

 

Confused :wacko: ? I hope so :D , I allways use this with my friends, and they can't stand it. I thought it fitted the topic a bit, but now I'll say something serious (Note: this is one of the first times of my life I'm being serious...)

 

Well, I believe in the evolution theory, although I am an outspoken Catholic (It's not forbidden to say that, is it? :unsure: ) It makes sence that there weren't any complex creatures like us in the beginning. Still there are some things I'm unsure about.

 

For example: Dinosaurs. They supposedly evolved into birds. It is a bit hard to believe a heavy creature with scales suddenly grew feathers, got hollow bones like birds and could fly. Although skeletons of the 'fifty-fiftyrace' have been found, I'm still doubting there realness. The best explenation they have found untill now is that a dino ate flies and jumped in the air to get them. Suddenly the species grew feathers and could fly to catch flies!

 

Another reason to doubt is the next one: If it was only one dinosaur race that canged into birds, how can it be that there are thousands of different bird species today? And if all dinosaur races changed into birds, why did they only find a skeleton of one kind?

 

The thing that makes this topic so unclear, is that Darwin supposedly said his theory of evolution wasn't correct a few years after he published it. I don't know if it is true, but I've read about it in several books.

 

So: I think evolution is real, but I KNOW humans still don't know anything about it, and we only have a few pieces of the puzzle.

 

Cya

 

Fritz

[Peregrine]

First I want to say something about time. Time is just a thing used by man to understand everything around him. From the big bang till now, might just be one second. But it is also possible that while I'm typing this, a billion years have passed. The only thing we can use as time, is the earth's rotation around it's axis (day) and around the sun (year). But are these really days and years? Or merely a fraction of it? It is entirely plausible that the universe only exist 10.000 years, while that consists of millions of human years.

 

Absolutely and completely wrong. Time is defined in terms of a physical constant (rate of decay for a specific element, I believe). The only way to get a 10,000 year old universe is if you redefine the english word "year" to refer to a different physical value. But then it's a meaningless statement, it would be just as valid to say that the universe is one year old, a trillion years old, or any other arbitrary age I could think of.

For example: Dinosaurs. They supposedly evolved into birds. It is a bit hard to believe a heavy creature with scales suddenly grew feathers, got hollow bones like birds and could fly. Although skeletons of the 'fifty-fiftyrace' have been found, I'm still doubting there realness. The best explenation they have found untill now is that a dino ate flies and jumped in the air to get them. Suddenly the species grew feathers and could fly to catch flies!

 

You have a few mistakes here. First, not all dinosaurs were big and heavy, many of them were small, about the same size as modern birds. Second, all those features are useful for flight, but not absolutely necessary (flying squirrels, for example, have neither feathers nor hollow bones). You won't fly as well as a species that has them, but it's possible to get useful flight while developing those adaptations. There could be a simple order:

 

1) Controlled falling/long jumping: only the most minimal wing-like structure is necessary.

 

2) Gliding: more demanding, but doesn't require the full set of adaptations (of course they will help, and natrual selection will pick them).

 

3) Clumsy flight: even more demanding, probably needs the adaptations, but not at full strength. For example, bones that are somewhat hollow, but not perfectly optimized yet.

 

4) Modern flight: now all the adaptations are present at full strength, and you have a modern bird.

 

 

And this process is NOT sudden. There is a continuous spectrum of flight improvements all the way from essentially zero to the most adapted bird. This development can happen over a LONG period of time, since the adaptations will be useful in their partial state. Give it enough time, and the species as a whole will adapt better and better.

 

Another reason to doubt is the next one: If it was only one dinosaur race that canged into birds, how can it be that there are thousands of different bird species today?

 

The same way any other set of species with a common ancestor developed. The ancestor split into two or more isolated populations, genetic changes happened over a long period of time, and eventually the two populations became too different to breed (the definition of a species).

 

And if all dinosaur races changed into birds, why did they only find a skeleton of one kind?

 

Use some common sense. Fossils only develop under a rare set of circumstances, and we have only searched a tiny fraction of the planet. For every fossil we have, there are billions of organisms that died without ever becoming fossils, or ended up paved over by another parking lot. We're lucky we have the evidence you call "too few".

 

And it's not just the fossil record. You can trace the genetic changes back to a common dinosaur ancestor, completely independent of any fossils. In fact, this has been done, humbling the mighty t-rex by discovering its closest living relative is the chicken.

 

The thing that makes this topic so unclear, is that Darwin supposedly said his theory of evolution wasn't correct a few years after he published it. I don't know if it is true, but I've read about it in several books.

 

This is an outright lie. Darwin never took back his theory. The suppsed "deathbed conversion" is a lie spread by creationists who want to discredit the theory by any means necessary. Unfortunately, the fraud seems to work, as many people believe it without checking the facts.

[Marxist ßastard]

Absolutely and completely wrong. Time is defined in terms of a physical constant (rate of decay for a specific element, I believe).

Well, slightly and technically a bit off. The SI second is defined in terms of how long a stable, non-radioactive cesium-133 atom takes to react to electromagnetic waves at around the microwave range. The principle here is vaguely similar to neon lighting, but very precisely timed and controlled. The kinetics of radioactive decay are much trickier to handle compared to this, and thus radioactive decay isn't a suitable basis for a standard.

 

From the big bang till now, might just be one second. But it is also possible that while I'm typing this, a billion years have passed. ...Are these really days and years? Or merely a fraction of it? It is entirely plausible that the universe only exist 10.000 years, while that consists of millions of human years. ...We only have a few pieces of the puzzle.

Yes, exactly! Also, have you ever considered how we define up and down? I mean, it's really very arbitrary. Someone seriously just sat down one day and said, "hmm, I think up will we upward, and down will be downward; that makes sense, right?" How do we know what's up and what's down?

 

Now, I believe in the theory of gravity --- don't get me wrong here. I think that gravity comes to objects and makes them fall down. It only makes sense that heavy objects are further down than light objects. However, do we really know that down is down? Do we really know that up is up? It is possible that down is up. It is also possible that down is sideways. Our only basis of comparison is that the sky is upward, and the ground is downward. We only have a few pieces of the puzzle.

 

So then let's think about this "gravity" business for a second. Since nobody has proved, to my satisfaction and in a manner that I completely understand, that down is down, then that must mean that whatever I think about the subject is automatically true, with no proof required. I happen to believe that down is up. Thus, if I were to push you out of a seventh-story window, you'd fall up. Care to test this hypothesis? Don't worry, my faith is very strong.

 

What if you're getting a tan on a species level?

When you get a tan, your children don't inherit the tan. People of African descent don't all just have extremely thorough tans. I just don't know who keeps telling you these things.