Somthing for evolutionist's to ponder

[faded glory]

It takes awhile to think these things through. Its like an invention...everybody says "damn why didnt I think of that". Its sort of like that.


As for evolution...it has its flaws.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Funnily enough, this highlights one of the problems I have with evolution (although I stress that I still believe it is a better theory than creation).

We have never observed a creation of life event which was necessary in the primordial soup to set off evolution in the first place. Presumably it would have to be rather common-place since the chance of one tiny single celled organism turning into life on Earth without being killed off must be fairly high. There are always anthropic principles to fall back on I suppose....

On the other hand, there's aren't too many "primordial soup" like locales on the Earth anymore. Also, even if a life-creation event took place somewhere on Earth today (lets say around thermal vents), said organism would likely be outcompeted/eaten/destroyed/what-have-you by our established organisms.

In that regard, it was likely easier for the first lifeform to establish itself than it would be for a new one today. It wouldn't have had any competition.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by aaglo
Inevitably this kind of height increase will affect on the genetics of humans - the bone and muscular structure will adapt to the "new height standards".

Incorrect. This theory, which is known as Lysenkoism, was disprroved with a rather simple experiment. Generations of mice had their tails cut off, but at no point did mice ever evolve into hamsters.

The only place where changes in the body can affect future generations are in the germ cells in the testes/ovaries. No matter how much I exercise, I will not pass on good muscle tone to my kids.

[CyberGnu]

Rogan, no one claims that a single cell organism was created out of the primordial soup.

What was created out of the soup was propably a selfreplicating molecule, such as a strand of RNA.

And while we haven't observed the creation of RNA from random chemicals (a process that statistically would take several million years), we have observed the synthesis of the the RNA starting materials though electric discharge in an artificial primordeal soup.

So, while the origin of life isn't proven, there is nothing to suggest that the current model is flawed.

[Dauphin]

Correct me if I am wrong, but most christians these days will believe whatever scientific "proof" is produced. That is to say, that the laws of nature/science were set-up in a state condusive to intelligent life*. If evolution was a part of His plan then so be it, if God chose another way then thats fine and Dandy too.

Some would say this is a cop-out, but for me I have never held that religon is here to provide "scientific" explanations. That is not the purpose of Christianity.

*This is obviously the case - we are here, the main difference of opinion for most people is whether it was a deliberate design or fluke.

[Drake Tungsten]

How in the hell did this argument last for 6 pages? Some people have a little too much time on their hands, obviously.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
I stated earlier ; I dont believe in Creation or Evolution. You fools who claim to know it all are wrong. They will prove both of these theorys bogus!

Nobody alleged knowing everything. We have just said evolution is way better than creationism, which isn't even a scientific theory.

Originally posted by faded glory
Wait a few years when the Scientific community gets there head outta there arse.....

Funny you know more about biology than the scientific community

Originally posted by faded glory
Evolution- they cant make up there mind how old the earth is! When I was in school they said the earth was only 2 billion years old!

It's not the job of biologists to determine the age of the earth, but how old are you? IIRC age of the earth had been agreed upon for a very long time - at least several decades.

Originally posted by faded glory
As well as everything to do with evolution.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
We have never observed a creation of life event which was necessary in the primordial soup to set off evolution in the first place. Presumably it would have to be rather common-place since the chance of one tiny single celled organism turning into life on Earth without being killed off must be fairly high. There are always anthropic principles to fall back on I suppose....

That's a common misconception most people hold, that somehow a one-celled organism got "created" out of scratch from the primordial soup. Creationists have been attacking this point in a futile attempt to "disprove" evolution. The mistakes here are:

• Evolution is not concerned about the origin of life on earth. It is concerned with how one lifeform gives rises to another (this is a rather imprecise way of putting it).
• Life didn't begin at a single-celled organism. It began when something could replicate itself. Reproduction, afterall, is the hallmark of life.

Since large numbers of large molecules can replicate itself, it is a lot easier for life to be formed from this primordial soup than Creationists put it. For example, polypetides can deplicate itself under suitable conditions, such as when the building blocks (peptides and amino acids) are available, the first life on earth could easily be some polypetide strands.

[ranskaldan]

Evolution- they cant make up there mind how old the earth is! When I was in school they said the earth was only 2 billion years old!
Now thats been pushed back

far from showing what's wrong with evolution, this shows what's right. It's flexible, constantly adapting to new evidence. If some new evidence pops up that proves that the earth is in fact 10 billion years old, the scientists are fully willing to not only accept it, but to applaud it as a great new discovery.

Creationism doesn't. Sometimes I get the feeling that creation is adapting the evidence to the theory, not the theory to the evidence. That's exactly what's wrong. It's a theory that increasingly departs from evidence.

As for evolution...it has its flaws.

Of course it has flaws. Try naming a theory that doesn't have flaws. Even the theory of gravity has flaws, and is constantly being revised.

Now, name me a theory that has nothing but flaws. Umm, let's see. The flat earth theory is one. So is creation.

[Roman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Incorrect. This theory, which is known as Lysenkoism, was disprroved with a rather simple experiment. Generations of mice had their tails cut off, but at no point did mice ever evolve into hamsters.

The only place where changes in the body can affect future generations are in the germ cells in the testes/ovaries. No matter how much I exercise, I will not pass on good muscle tone to my kids.

This is not quite true. If you exercise, it will change the level of methylation of the relevant genes. Up till very recently, it was thought that the level of gene methylation is reset in germ cells, but new studies indicate that some of this methylation does in fact get passed on to the next generation (though not very much). Methylation controls to what degree a gene manifests itself, so your behaviour will effect the characteristics of your children to some, very limited degree. Nevertheless, you are right that the genetic code itself is not affected.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's a common misconception most people hold, that somehow a one-celled organism got "created" out of scratch from the primordial soup. Creationists have been attacking this point in a futile attempt to "disprove" evolution. The mistakes here are:

• Evolution is not concerned about the origin of life on earth. It is concerned with how one lifeform gives rises to another (this is a rather imprecise way of putting it).
• Life didn't begin at a single-celled organism. It began when something could replicate itself. Reproduction, afterall, is the hallmark of life.

Since large numbers of large molecules can replicate itself, it is a lot easier for life to be formed from this primordial soup than Creationists put it. For example, polypetides can deplicate itself under suitable conditions, such as when the building blocks (peptides and amino acids) are available, the first life on earth could easily be some polypetide strands.

Fascinating. I suppose I had heard this before, but it just sort of dawned on me... in a sense, we are all evolved from... prions. Gadzooks! Amazing that they are so toxic and deadly to us today.

[tmarcl]

Originally posted by faded glory


Yes......I just told you humans could not have been on earth for 3 million years. The present day population would NOT reflect what it should be!

OK, so this mathematician proved what has already been known? I seem to recall that homo sapiens (that's us) appeared around 60,000 years ago, not 3 million. You know, it's ok if you don't agree with evolution, but you should at least try to find out what it truly is that you're disagreeing with, instead of just what you are told it is that you're disagreeing with.

Marc

[tmarcl]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


There is also evidence that the earth is nearly 6 billion years old (was it not?), the bible on the other hand concludes that it is 6,000 years old.

Just a minor nitpick. The bible itself doesn't conclude that the earth is 6,000 years old-a man named Bishop Usher did using the geneologies in the Old Testament. Back when the geneologies were written, it was common to #1) skip the names of people in geneologies-especially those that you didn't really want to admit belonged in the family tree, and #2) believe that people lived much longer than they actually did.

What many people seem to forget is that the bible was never meant to be the history of the world. It's the collected stories, beliefs and traditions of a specific group of people ( at least in the Old Testament).

For fundamentalists to accept it as one hundred percent accurate is understandable, for non-fundamentalists to believe that the writers intended to be one hudred percent accurate is wrong.

Marc

[tmarcl]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Are you saying evolution is stupid?

Creation is wrong. Geocentrism and a flat earth was proven wrong, they are elements of the bible.

****, I must've been reading the wrong bible. Certainly geocentrism and flat earth were elements of belief back when the bible was written, but I'm almost completely positive that the beliefs didn't originate with the bible itself.

Marc

[MasterBob The Elder]

Okay, first of all , all you are morons who believe this. Population is not a lineat growth, and there is no way to factor in everything that effects population growth. The more people that are born, the more that die. Now it would be fine if people didn't die of accidents, disease, and everything else. Remember Hunger also kills people.
Actually I heard that some people have calculated the rate of popuation growth as a natural log(LN) expression, but one look at this and I know its wrong, you can't factor everything in.

I remember a math dude once predicted that it is "possible" to produce so many bushels of grain per acre, but the actual production is only 1/500 of that rate.