-->
@Ramshutu
Yeah, well then WHY ARE THERE STILL LUNGFISH IF THEY BECAME US????? My grandma weren't no lungfish!!!!!
do people understand my religious jargon
Posts
Total:
145
-->
@Ramshutu
Materialist answer, change in environment, mutation, and time.
-->
@ludofl3x
Haha yeah - that’s a special type of stupidity. But it’s one of the more interesting lines of absurd questioning I’ve seen “it’s still a fly”, or “its still a dog”
when talking about speciation.
We’re still Eukaryotic deutorostomic, bilateral, Chordate, bony, vertebrate, skulked, jawed, lobed tetropod, amniotic, synapsid, Mammal, Eutherian, primate, great ape humans.
You can’t outf**k your lineage.
-->
@Ramshutu
Doesn't stop me from trying, though. HIYO!
-->
@janesix
Herdity of traitsMaterialist answer, change in environment, mutation, and time.
Variation of traits between generations
The statistical link of traits to survival.
So you kinda got one out of the three.
This doesn't look great for you!
-->
@ludofl3x
This appears ripe for a yo momma joke
-->
@Ramshutu
Herdity of traitsVariation of traits between generationsThe statistical link of traits to survival
I don't think this applies to rocks, and rocks can be said to 'evolve' (not in this context though). They physically change according to pressure from their environment (literal pressure!). Put a jagged rock in a river for a hundred thousand years and it's smaller, smoother when you get back. And don't you also need time, which isn't mentioned? That's the one I think trips people up the most. It's not possible (thanks a LOT, evolution!) to truly comprehend the scale of time in which evolution takes place. It's simply not possible for a human being whose life spans only 100 years to really understand 10,000 years, much less the difference between 100,000 and 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 years.
-->
@ludofl3x
In my last post, I meant to say that if rocks had those properties - they would evolve (and they would). They should don’t have those properties. There are some very interesting examples of non life forms that have those properties: can you think of a few? :)
It’s actually important here, you hear pastors or the anti-science anti-evolution people talking about cars, and inanimate objects in relation to evolution - in actuality you’ll often find they fall down onto a false dichotomy by comparing things that evolve with things that don’t have those properties. When you apply those properties to the cars they talk about: you start seeing their logical flaws.
-->
@Ramshutu
As far as things that evolve in a similar context that are NOT life forms? I can actually, ironically, churches!
- Churches need people to continue to survive and exert their influence.They need people, in other words, to REPRODUCE their church. The parishioners act as a sort of "DNA" of the organization, or the food required to maintain energy to reproduce (this is inexact I know).
- People stop going to churches when the church finds itself at odds with overwhelmingly popular notions. For example, a church in an area with a large homosexual population that preaches anti-gay rhetoric from the pulpit week after week will find itself struggling for parishioners. Less parishioners = less donation, less donation = less financial feasibility to expand church, less expansion = opening for other churches to service the needs. Less obvious but real life example: Vatican II. No more latin, because people don't speak latin, and are becoming less and less interested in our church and are trying churches that speak english. Or, believers believe that Jesus burns babies who die before baptism in a lake of fire...this turns off parishioners! Catholic church invents doctrine of purgatory from whole cloth, to soothe this concern. REACT TO ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE AND CHANGES OR FORGO AT PERIL.
- No reaction to environmental pressure means another option opens for those parishioners you lost. Nature abhors a vacuum. Other churches grow while yours shrinks. They crowd you out and eventually buy your nice church building and put their sign up. You have been DESELECTED by the population because you are an unappealing or non-viable reproduction candidate. Your beliefs do NOT get passed down (hereditary trait) and eventually, are lost to history. Ask the Cheldonians, Romans, Greeks, Canaanites and Egyptians.
- Conversely you react to the environmental pressure and more reproduction opportunities are available to you, more sustenance. Your church grows, it is rewarded for evolving. Eventually, the race is on between your church and the church two blocks over to be more appealing, because more appealing = more attendees = more money = more churches = more attendees = more money and on and on. You must, though, be first to figure out what you will use as your attractant, or how you will better digest your food and convert it to energy. Maybe we stop bashing gays last month...maybe this month we let women into the clergy....maybe in a year we let divorced people back into the church to take communion....etc etc.
Plenty of non-living things evolve. Business, for example (ask your local Toys R Us employee what the internet did to their business when they didn't react to its threat). Cars (remember when we thought gigantic cars that got 7 MPG were desirable on a wide scale?). Basically everything must evolve in order to survive.
-->
@ludofl3x
churches - and specifically religion are a good example, yes.
Cars and designed things - somewhat: but not really, too many non evolutionary jumps due to non heridary things: though there are facets. Cigarette lighters being hijacked in many models as just power sockets are a great one!
Another great example is language.
-->
@Ramshutu
How about the evolution of 'races' of people?
Agreed on cars and stuff like that, far less analogous than churches, languages or races. Still, the principle that you must adapt in order to survive and flourish seems as universal as I can think of.
THe thing I don't know how people get around is what's the ALTERNATIVE to evolution through natural selection? Wouldn't it necessarily be that all things are created in their final form and never change?
-->
@ludofl3x
In terms of races, there’s likely little evolution going on as there is not as substantial selective pressure going on (though there is some in some cases).
With regards to alternatives, there isn’t really. It’s mostly a set of conjecture, non explanations, hand waving and undemonstrable assertions that are volunteered as plausible after intellectually dishonesty rejections of evolution have been forwarded.
-->
@Ramshutu
n terms of races, there’s likely little evolution going on as there is not as substantial selective pressure going on (though there is some in some cases).
I read excerpts of a research paper a while ago that theorized (and supported) the idea that mankind originated in continental Africa, near the equator where the radiation from the sun required more melanin for protection, and as populations migrated north into Europe, east into high plains / desert Asia, changes slowly occurred. Higher altitudes = changes in eye shape, for example. It wasn't rock solid but it was plausible and as I recall was under peer review. I wish I remembered where I read the excerpts or the name of the paper / author.
-->
@crossed
Ok, let's say you're right.
Intelligent design is true.
Which god are you talking about?
-->
@ludofl3x
yeah that’s there’s been this sort of evolution in the past isn’t contentious - and I believe that’s a typically understood form of evolution: I’m talking about present day. The only examples I know of are things like heart disease immunity in Italy and height in Holland. It’s not as broad now as there is not so much selective pressure.
what you may see in the western world is a delay in the onset of menapause. That’s something I can see.
-->
@Ramshutu
Viruses.In my last post, I meant to say that if rocks had those properties - they would evolve (and they would). They should don’t have those properties. There are some very interesting examples of non life forms that have those properties: can you think of a few? :)
I am almost sure this is either a troll or a child. "Polar bears are white because they need to hide in the snow" ignores the fact that polar bear fur is clear, not white, but even better, it says olive oil cures cancer.
OLIVE OIL. CURES. CANCER.
i do not have the time to respond to two pages worth of stuff. do not have the time. i'm not trolling but i will try to explain myself
evolution theory
a fish grew legs over millions of years because it wanted food.
a monkey turning into a human.
what causes these things to happen.
natural selection does not cover stuff like this. so how does it happen
if i stand in a pond what would cause my feat to become webbed.
natural selection is
the creatures with short fur died out in snowy areas
but the creatures with long hair creatures survived the snowy areas.
i believe that this is not natural selection but proof that god was thinking.
god created the creatures in summer areas with short hair because he knew long hair would be hot and shorter hair would help them cool off
and god created the creatures in cold areas with long hair. so they would have a way to keep warm.
were are all the fossil evidence. if there were small teeth meat eaters who died out were is the fossil evidence. there should be as much evidence as there are dinosaurs.
god created most of the meat eaters with big teeth because he intended for them to hunt.
a comment i saw
ludofl3x said
I am almost sure this is either a troll or a child. "Polar bears are white because they need to hide in the snow" ignores the fact that polar bear fur is clear, not white, but even better, it says olive oil cures cancer.
OLIVE OIL. CURES. CANCER.
polor bears are white
i said that olive oil kills cancer cells. i don't think i said olive oil cures cancer. i ask myself why is it not considered a cure along with lemons. there is a group of people who ask if Olive oil kills cancer. it would not surprise me pharmakeai
i said
olive oil distinguishes
Olive oil kills cancer cells but spares good cells if god created the universe it makes sense that olive oil can tell the difference between good cells and cancer cells. But if a bunch of nothing created olive oil would not the olive oil kill both good cells and cancer cells. Because inanimate objects can not tell the difference between good and bad. For example pharmakeai people who are doctors use this treatment called chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is a treatment for cancer were the physician poisons his patience in the hope that the poison kill the cancer cells but because the poison can not tell the difference between good cells and cancer cells it just kills them all and the doctors hope that the good cells grow back. So if a bunch of nothing created the universe would not olive oil work like chemotherapy.
-->
@3RU7AL
pffft technicalities!
-->
@crossed
Selective breeding is not evolution.
But they rely on the same principles.
Children have properties of their parents, changing who breeds and by how much effects subsequent generations, you can control - to a degree - what genes get passed on and which don’t.
That’s how we’ve gotten the massive and wide variety of selectively human bred dogs, horses, rabbits, plants.
Right? The principle behind both are the same.
i agree selective breeding is not evolution
i only brought it up because you talked about animals breeding for certain traits
-->
@crossed
But the principle behind the two are roughly the same, right?
-->
@Ramshutu
No. In artificial selection, you only get more or less of what you started with.
-->
@janesix
No. In artificial selection, you only get more or less of what you started with.
She asserts without any evidence, or justification.
To start with, let’s Assume your quote is just a grotesque oversimplification of genetics that glosses over gene duplication and events that add genetic material: Im assuming you have a firm and specific idea of exactly what aspect of evolution requires something over and above “more or less of what you started with”?
-->
@Ramshutu
Mutation
-->
@janesix
Mutation is what causes the variaion of traits that are used in selective breeding.
We can also objectively observe them in reality.
-->
@crossed
Why isn't this in the science forum? I haven't seen any indication of religious conversation.
-->
@Ramshutu
Herdity of traitsVariation of traits between generationsThe statistical link of traits to survival
More accurately, the statistical link of traits to offspring production. It's a subtle difference.
-->
@Snoopy
Because the OP probably rejects evolution for religious reasons.