Bread_of_Life Posted March 28, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Ovedya, Why do people see in color. Why is there color? Well, the answer to the second question there is because there are different wavelengths of visible light, and different materials reflect different wavelengths. I would imagine that contrast is key to seeing well - avoiding predation and indeed finding prey - and therefore colour is a good thing to see. However, I've never looked into it. Why did eyeballs supposedly evolve at all? Actually, there's been a very in-depth piece of research on the evolution of the eye by a pair of Swedish scientists, Dan Nillson and Susanne Pelger. Here's a link to the abstract for the paper - you'll be able to find the full thing at your local library: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum NooPilgrim, So you're basically saying we have to eat more to evolve further? - the fat man wins. Cool, I'm lightyears ahead! LOL! I'm saying that, in the struggle for survival, everything has a cost - and that cost is (usually) food (although could be time also - and the risk associated with taking more time to mature and grow). Naively we might think that any mutation that adds strength or speed to an animal would be beneficial - but we may not be taking into account the cost of building a stronger or faster animal. 4.3 billion years and still counting.....thats a long war to have no conclusion There will never be a conclusion, I'm afraid. Viruses and bacteria will ALWAYS be a step ahead of us. Fortunately, most viruses and bacteria evolve such that they don't kill us - or at least - not too quickly - because it's usually not clever to kill to many of your hosts!!! But no, there will always be disease, even with the responsiveness of modern technology to the challenge. These things have been around for a long long time, and they'll be around for a long long time hence. Appen. Vice-versa too. Eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted March 28, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2006 The answer is devastatingly simple - it's because amoebas still do very well for themselves. There's more than one way of making an efficient and effective living on planet earth. Bacteria still make up about 50% of the biomass of the earth, despite being very simple forms of life - and they're always gonna be pretty common - because they've found a niche that they've become very well adapted to. So long as there are still trees to live in, there'll be Chimps and Caterpillars and Birds to live in them. So long as there are oceans to live in there'll be fish that'll adapt to live in them, and will do very well out of it. In fact, if it's possible to survive and breed successfully in an environment, that environment will remain inhabited. Evolution doesn't eradicate species just because they're old, or live in an old fashioned way. It eradicates them if they find themselves unable to survive and breed. Amoebas don't find themselves unable to survive and breed - in fact they flourish. So that's the basic answer - if a lifeform still does well for itself, it'll remain. Under a Christian paradigm where God guided evolution, this makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, for our naturalistic friends who have no need for God, we are now left with the question of, if these bacteria did so well that they have survived millions of years relatively unchanged....why did they evolve in the first place? Evolution is almost always adaptation, or an improvement to the enviroment. If bacteria are still around in the original form, then this poses a problem to the naturalistic evolutionist. There is now no explanation for the evolution; in fact, it goes against established evolutionary theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted March 28, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Apoth, if these bacteria did so well that they have survived millions of years relatively unchanged....why did they evolve in the first place? The answer to this is equally simple - there are other ways of making a very good living, other than being a bacteria. When there's no competition in those ways of making a living, but heavy competition being a bacteria, it makes a lot of sense changing your living. In other words, in a world full of carpenters, it makes sense to be a swordsmith, because competition at carpentery will be high. That doesn't mean that carpenters will die out or start making a poor living, it just means you'll get more swordsmiths. Furthermore, we should always take into account geography in evolution if we're looking at a general solution to this question. It may be that the same animal adapts to conditions differently in different places - and therefore that species split in two - leaving the old species and a new one. Also, don't assume that bacteria remained unchanged for millions of years - they have evolved too to meet the constantly changing world - a world of eukaryotes. Evolution is almost always adaptation, or an improvement to the enviroment. If bacteria are still around in the original form, then this poses a problem to the naturalistic evolutionist. There are two different forms of evolutionary change - orthogenesis, where a species simply moves along improving its adaption to its environment - and cladogenesis, where a species splits in two, and the two form seperate lineages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecco Posted March 28, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 163 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2006 (edited) NotJohn: then whay are there still amoebas?? Why are there still fish? If every creature is always changing and evolving into a more efficient form, then why aren't there only people on this earth? That certainly makes no sense. EAAD: Evolution not only does not make any sense, it is totally unfounded and disproven in science. Or you look at the whale, his breathing could not go from the mouth THROUGH HIS BRAIN with out killing him to "evolve" to the top of his head! also, cells that mutate are SICK, not a new type of cell. Healthy cells reproduce the like oever and over. Mutations are found to be sick. Spunky: In regards that man evolved from apes - unbelieveable -. If man is of the monkey (which I know he is not) then in all of the years man has been on earth and conscious of his surroundings has not one monkey been seen to evolved Ovedya: Why do people see in color. Why is there color? Why did eyeballs supposedly evolve at all? All the above comments indicate that the writers have little knowledge of evolution and have acquired a great deal of misinformation about the subject. If you believe that man evolved from monkeys, you certainly did not get that information from a textbook on evolution. If you believe that Edited March 28, 2006 by ecco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted March 28, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Butero, If man evolved from a fish, to an ape, to man, why are there still fish and why are their still apes? Simple. Try going to your local river, sea or ocean, and living in it. You'll find that you can't. Or try going to live the life of a chimpanzee, up a tree - you'll find you're poorly adapted to this too. We like every other creature have evolved to fit our environment as that has changed. That doesn't mean the old environments that we used to live in are now abandoned - you can still make a perfectly good living as a fish, as the billions and billions of sea creatures throughout the world prove. And there's still a good trade in making a living up a tree, as an ape. It just happens that we're not making that living any more, we "found" another way to live. It's a shame though that I'm having to repeat myself. When the answer to your question is directly above your previous post, one has to start asking - how hard are you looking for an answer to your question? Are you looking for an answer at all, or are you looking for problems with a theory that, for religious reasons, you happen not to like? Best, Nik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NooPilgrim Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 (edited) Perhaps you should ask yourself where you got that ridiculous knowledge. "missing evidence = proof." "missing evidence=no reason for doubt" Some would deny Gods existence by the same principal of missing evidence and yet uphold their belief in evolution by the same token. Perhaps a spoon of ones own medecine would not go amiss. Ecco, your protests of the "poor education" of your opponents in regards to evolution theory only presents the premise that evolution, whilst treated at as fact by the scientific community at large, is poorly taught in our schools. Other sciences such as math were taught to me as fact also and I'm sure to others and a very good job was done of it too. I doubt I shall ever forget that 1+1=2. If evolution is such an inherent part of understanding where we come from, who and what we are and where we are going and if it is a key "fact" to such massively detremental and important questions as "what does life all mean?" then why is it not taught with the same effeciency and vigour as basic math? I have a serious question or two for our evolutionist colleagues tho. 1) What does it benefit any creature to procreate and in effect produce more competition for food? 2) If procreation is an inbuilt instinct to enable the continuation of species, what source would estblish such instinct and to what ends? 3) If there is purpose to existence then where does that purpose come from? 4) If there is no purpose to existence then why would there be such a strong compulsion in all living creatures to procreate? Edited March 28, 2006 by NooPilgrim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChadB Posted March 29, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 42 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/07/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted March 29, 2006 Remember evolution states that the changes in an organism(evolution) result from beneficial RANDOM mutations. Now, the last time a checked mutations are never good and always result in that particular copy being flawed to the point where it hurts the organism its found within or death occurs. The idea that all of these mutations happened and they were good is crazy. Remember evolution occured as an accident. Example: Fish developed appendages in order to become amphibians not because they wanted to but because the accidential mutation happened where they grew appendages and then figured out how to use them. Oh, and they accidentially grew a functional lung too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted March 29, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted March 29, 2006 NooPilgrim, 1) What does it benefit any creature to procreate and in effect produce more competition for food? Good question. Evolution does not work to the benefit of the creature, but to the benefit of the genes that cause the creature. Creatures die - only their genes are passed to the next generation - therefore genes act in their own interests - not necessarily the creature's (although fortunately, these often coincide)!!! Genes that make us procreate will become common - because they will be caused to multiply by procreation. They will become successful genes, and will end up common in organisms. Genes that make us bad at procreating - or make us not want to - they're the genes that never made it into the next generation of creatures, because the creatures they were in didn't procreate. In other words, while it doesn't benefit a creature to have lots of other creatures around, it is essential for genes. In this case, the best interests of the creature conflict with the best interests of its genes, and since genes build creatures, and it's genes that are passed on - they tend to win such conflicts! 2) If procreation is an inbuilt instinct to enable the continuation of species, what source would estblish such instinct and to what ends? Genes, in order to replicate themselves. Successful genes will be the ones that make us good at procreating. 3) If there is purpose to existence then where does that purpose come from? The purpose of our existence is to worship God and do His work on earth. This purpose comes from God the Father, and is displayed perfectly through the life of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God. God the Holy Spirit helps us achieve this purpose. 4) If there is no purpose to existence then why would there be such a strong compulsion in all living creatures to procreate? The urge to procreate is quite seperate from the purpose to life - which is to serve God. The urge to procreate is something physical - not spiritual - caused by our genes which create our physical make-up and make up want to procreate. This urge has been selected for - because genes that make us want to procreate make us create more copies of themselves, and therefore become successful. Butero Evolution teaches that mankind evolved from primitive life forms. They teach that a fish came out of the water and became some type of land dwelling creature. If the environment in the water was fine for them, why leave it? They teach a gorilla evolved into a man. Since gorillas still exist on land, and the enviornment is favorable for them to continue doing so, why would some evolve into a man and others remain a gorilla? You haven't given a satisfactory answer to anything. Sadly, again, it would seem you've not read my responses. Apothenein asked the EXACT same question above, and I answered him. Please read this answer, and if it is not satisfactory, or you need clarification, then you can ask for it. ChadB Now, the last time a checked mutations are never good and always result in that particular copy being flawed to the point where it hurts the organism its found within or death occurs. When was the last time you checked? Have you ever actually checked? Remember evolution states that the changes in an organism(evolution) result from beneficial RANDOM mutations. As a theist, it may also be worth remembering that mutations are actually pseudo-random, not random. In other words, they occur because of mechanistic processes that, were we in the know with enough information, we could predict. They're just too complex for us to predict, therefore we call them random. They are also, seemingly, directionless - they don't occur because an organism needs them or how an organism needs them - rather they occur because of the interaction of high energy light with a dividing cell's nucleas. But, the processes involved are mechanical. They are, with enough information about the universe, predictable. It is worth remembering this looking at evolution from a theistic point of view - God knew exactly what mutations would happen from the start of existence - and can cause new ones to happen at the click of His divine fingers. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Heathen Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 The fundamentalist Christian movement produces and propagates this silly misinformation about evolution and any part of science that doesn't agree with the some part of the bible. "Evolution" is a very large field with many different scientific disciplines which lend information to the whole of Evolutionary theory. Science learns new things everyday but there is basic agreement among all the various fields of science that touch on evolutionary theory. Like the age of the earth, speciation etc. many of these other fields also work with or are connected to various other fields of science which the bible cannot (at least not any longer) deny or that are used everyday. Such as Astronomy, Geology, Biology, Medicine, Anthropology... many technologies that even fundamentalist religion cannot deny are used or are the basis for working in evolutionary theory. Millions of scientists in all fields of science agree with evolutionary theory. The same scientific principles that are and have been applied to everything manufactured by humans today, are applied to the ongoing discoveries of evolution. To deny the validity of evolutionary science would be to deny, for example, the combustion engine. The combustion engine runs on fossil fuels. Geology, chemistry, biology etc are involved in the process of gaining and refining fossil fuels. Without these sciences there would be no cars. These sciences and their methods are used in evolutionary science as well. You are free to believe or disbelieve, agree or disagree as you wish based on your faith or otherwise but to actively seek to spread misinformation is simply reprehesible. -------------------------------------------------- "missing evidence = proof." "missing evidence=no reason for doubt" Some would deny Gods existence by the same principal of missing evidence and yet uphold their belief in evolution by the same token. --------------------------------------------------- There is a great deal of evidence for evolution while the only evidence for your god is the bible. Who gave you the silly idea that missing evidence=proof? And proof of what? Missing evidence=no reason for doubt? What are you talking about? --------------------------------------------------- Ecco, your protests of the "poor education" of your opponents in regards to evolution theory only presents the premise that evolution, whilst treated at as fact by the scientific community at large, is poorly taught in our schools. Other sciences such as math were taught to me as fact also and I'm sure to others and a very good job was done of it too. I doubt I shall ever forget that 1+1=2. If evolution is such an inherent part of understanding where we come from, who and what we are and where we are going and if it is a key "fact" to such massively detremental and important questions as "what does life all mean?" then why is it not taught with the same effeciency and vigour as basic math? ---------------------------------------------------- It's not so much that it's "poor taught" as it is not taught completely enough and then of course there is the fundamentalist movement actively trying to discredit and misinform which leads to blather such as "why are there still fish and why are their still apes? Even if one wants to claim they are still constantly evolving, shouldn't there be various in between states, like a half fish half ape, or a half ape half man?" The Truth is that there ARE or WERE various in between stages. Like the lung fish, mudskipper, walking catfish, all the various types of fish, amphibions, reptiles, birds, primates... every creature is in a state of evolutionary change. Some have been so successful in their niche that their enviroment isn't forcing adaptation or mutations have been unbeneficial. ---------------------------------------------------- Evolution teaches that mankind evolved from primitive life forms. They teach that a fish came out of the water and became some type of land dwelling creature. If the environment in the water was fine for them, why leave it? They teach a gorilla evolved into a man. Since gorillas still exist on land, and the enviornment is favorable for them to continue doing so, why would some evolve into a man and others remain a gorilla? You haven't given a satisfactory answer to anything. --------------------------------------------------- Actually, evolution teaches that SOME type(s) of fish started either or both, leaving the water as a means of escape or to take advantage of other food sources. Over time (millions of years) a mutation appeared that allowed one of them to hold it's breath longer out of water which allowed it to survive longer and this mutation was passed on to it's progeny. Those fish that did not mate with the bearers of this mutation never evolved lungs. Now you have to species of creature from one. Likewise, when the lush rainforests of africa began drying up, tree dwelling primates had to cope with the gradual (millions of years) reduction of trees. Foraging on the ground more and being forced to change it's diet caused it to stand up on it's hind legs to look for predators in the tall grasses while it moved and foraged. Those primates who moved to other areas with the declining trees didn't need to adapt and therefore never started standing on it's hind legs. --------------------------------------------------- Concerning Ecco, when I was in Elementary School, we had textbooks in science class that had the illistration of a monkey becoming a man. --------------------------------------------------- We have illistrations of a cosologically centrist earth and a flat earth. Do you still believe the earth is flat just because it was the prevailing theory at one time? Christians murdered people for disagreeing with those views. Fortunately Christianity is no longer allowed to do such barbaric things to prevent ideas which disagree with the bible. As we learn more we advance our theories but rarely do we go back to disproved theories. --------------------------------------------------- Remember evolution states that the changes in an organism(evolution) result from beneficial RANDOM mutations. Now, the last time a checked mutations are never good and always result in that particular copy being flawed to the point where it hurts the organism its found within or death occurs. The idea that all of these mutations happened and they were good is crazy. Remember evolution occured as an accident. Example: Fish developed appendages in order to become amphibians not because they wanted to but because the accidential mutation happened where they grew appendages and then figured out how to use them. Oh, and they accidentially grew a functional lung too. ------------------------------------------------- See, here is the perpetuation of more disinformation. So when your child comes home from school and talks about evolution that they are being taught, this type of junk is told to them. Your first mistake is saying that mutations are never beneficial. Take the squirrel as an example. If you are a little squirrel jumping from tree branch to tree branch and one of your babies has a mutation that causes it to have a third eye on the top of it's head, this might be a good mutation because now it can see those hawks swooping down at it. This would help it survive. Unfortunately it lost focus on where it was jumping one day because it saw a hawk above it and it missed it's jump and fell to it's death. It was a beneficial mutation but it never got the chance to refine it's new advantage nor pass that mutation on to it's young. But another squirrel had a mutation that formed a membrane between it's front and back leg on each side. When it jumped from tree to tree it could kinda float a bit allowing it to jump farther. This alowed it to escape danger and widen it's foraging territory. It DOES get the opportunity to pass this mutation on and it's childrens children all pass it on. The other squirrels without the mutation still exist and they are doing well too. Now you have 2 different types of squirrels. ------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLuke Posted March 29, 2006 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 628 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/07/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/09/1985 Share Posted March 29, 2006 But surely to have two different types of species due to mutations, isn't the same as having two different kinds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts