Evolution Discussion

AceHart

Your Friendly Neighborhood Admin
Reaction score
1,491
> ... which created the universe so flawed and chaotically?

Chaos is good.
Only from Chaos may New Order emerge.

Fixed lines are just that, fixed.
 
L

lordloki

Guest
If we don't know, how do we know if someone knows, or if they know if some one knows about them knowing about someone knowing?
Are you trying to say that, if someone did know... how would we know it?
Thats the point.. we wouldnt. They wouldnt.

No sane mind ever claimed to know something for certain. Scientists are merely trying to indicate that their theories are correct.
Very true, however we do accept certain things as "Laws" and Fact.

Are you suggesting that the staggering complexity of the universe "proves" the existence of a supernatural, perfect, omnipotent and omniscient being, which created the universe so flawed and chaotically?
No, I am suggesting that whatever the case may be, it is beyond a fraction of our understanding. I am basically trying to say... stop searching for an answer that is so big you can't see it. Look at something much closer and more familiar... yourselves and those around you... Thats where these answers lay.
 

XXXconanXXX

Cocktails anyone?
Reaction score
284
Mind said:
Are you suggesting that the staggering complexity of the universe "proves" the existence of a supernatural, perfect, omnipotent and omniscient being, which created the universe so flawed and chaotically?
This brings us back to the topic of free will.

Flawed and chaotically? Without chaos and flaws, we would be 1.) perfect or 2.) beings with no free will.

Governments are corrupt, judges are crackheads, presidents lie, due to the fact of free will and imperfection. With free will and imperfection comes flaws and chaos, because fights break out due to differences in beliefs and looks. Humans in general are flawed due to free will, so no wonder the world in general is flawed if the core of it is flawed.
 

Shadowy Fear

I have returned
Reaction score
44
:p

We should focus our efforts on getting OFF of this planet, instead of trying to exploit it :rolleyes:. One day, a stray comet will hit the earth and impact at Toyko or Siberia or with karma L.A. and POOF we're all dead :p.
 

DM Cross

You want to see a magic trick?
Staff member
Reaction score
567
Actually, the sun will eventually explode and fry most of the planets :D
 

Rinpun

Ex TH Member
Reaction score
107
Actually, no one should give a crap--we're frying, melting, dying either way.
 

Shadowy Fear

I have returned
Reaction score
44
ROFL EXACTLY!

Actually, it will gradually expand, assimiliating Mercury and Venus and getting so close to Earth that all the oceans boil into space :rolleyes:. Then it will explode in a supernova, wiping out all life in this solar system, and then collapse into a white dwarf star, which would give out so little energy output that no present, known life could survive.

So lets see, thats 1., 2., and 3. reasons for leaving the Solar System :p.

BACK TO EVOLUTION :D :p

Rinpun, we have all been rather off-topic (IM OFFTOPIC KING SF PWNZ J0 all at offtopicness !!!!111!11!oneoneness!11one1!~~~ :p) here lately, but can you counter any of my arguments?

[Religion just seems rather presumptuos to me; just because we don't know how life was formed, we fantasize how it was formed (and then torture people who don't believe :p)]

[While some people say the mathematical chances of random chance creating us all is very small, the chance of an omnipotent, omnipresent being, only present in ancient texts, who is casually letting his creation collapse into ruin seems much smaller to me :p]
 

Mind

New Member
Reaction score
7
XXconanXXX said:
Flawed and chaotically? Without chaos and flaws, we would be 1.) perfect or 2.) beings with no free will.
Having no will is a flaw.

Governments are corrupt, judges are crackheads, presidents lie, due to the fact of free will and imperfection. With free will and imperfection comes flaws and chaos, because fights break out due to differences in beliefs and looks. Humans in general are flawed due to free will, so no wonder the world in general is flawed if the core of it is flawed.
Thank you for your agreement.

Shadowy Fear said:
:p

We should focus our efforts on getting OFF of this planet, instead of trying to exploit it :rolleyes:. One day, a stray comet will hit the earth and impact at Toyko or Siberia or with karma L.A. and POOF we're all dead :p.
The closest star from our sun, Alpha Centauri, is situated at 4,22 light-years away from our sun, so even if we would send a spaceship to it with the speed of 300.000 kilometres per hour - which would be contradicting nature's laws - it would arrive after about 4 years.

However, the Andromeda-system will, most probably, combine with our galaxy within 4 billion years, potentially bringing other stars closer to our sun.

Shadowy Fear said:
[Religion just seems rather presumptuos to me; just because we don't know how life was formed, we fantasize how it was formed (and then torture people who don't believe :p)]
Religion is an intuitive belief, which cannot be rationally explained, in my insight.

Rinpun said:
Actually, no one should give a crap--we're frying, melting, dying either way.
Are you suggesting we should all commit suicide?

Unless you live for many billions of years, you shouldn't worry about that.
 

DM Cross

You want to see a magic trick?
Staff member
Reaction score
567
Mind said:
The closest star, Alpha Centauri, is situated at 4,22 light-years away from our sun
Speaking of self-contradiction :p

The sun is a star. Therefore, Alpha Centauri would be the SECOND closest star, whereas the sun would be the first.

Heh, I love science class :cool:

-Also-

I don't know why this conversation is going on so long. I think someone said it before, you just don't know, and you're not going to know. For all you know, I'm God, just coming here to annoy you all and piss people off *Glances at Ryoko with a smile*

Well, I can tell you I'm not, but hell, for all I know, I am. Maybe my thoughts have shaped this reality, and the stress of my mind has caused me to go into a coma time and time again, only to wake up and remember nothing.

Now, you're all going to read that and say "Pft! Yeah right! Not possible!"

How do you know?

Years ago, people KNEW the sun revolved around the earth.

Not so long ago, people KNEW the planet was flat.

Imagine what you'll KNOW tomorrow...
 
L

lordloki

Guest
Years ago, people KNEW the sun revolved around the earth.

Not so long ago, people KNEW the planet was flat.

Imagine what you'll KNOW tomorrow...
Someone's been watching too much Men In Black
 

DM Cross

You want to see a magic trick?
Staff member
Reaction score
567
Hey, it got the point across, didn't it?! :p

Lol, plus that's a good quote...And it's true.
 

Shadowy Fear

I have returned
Reaction score
44
Yes it was :D :D :D

Mind said:
The closest star, Alpha Centauri, is situated at 4,22 light-years away from our sun, so even if we would send a spaceship to it with the speed of 300.000 kilometres per hour - which would be contradicting nature's laws - it would arrive after about 4 years.
However, the Andromeda-system will, most probably, combine with our galaxy within 4 billion years, potentially bringing other stars closer to our sun.[/QUOTE]
Hmm, lets see, wait four billion years for a potientally obliberating chance to see another star waaaaay too close? SURE LETS GO WITH THAT :D :D :D Rofl, you are indeed correct, although the gravitic fluctuations woul probably have a greater effect than that of stars; they rarely collide during galactic collisions, at least not in the area of the M.W. we are in. Although, the two galaxies' supermassive black holes would likely capture each other in their gravity fields, draw each other together, and then assimilate each other into one super-supermassive black hole. Then, the gravitic waves would probably be like a 50.0 onthe Richter scale, if I have done my math right, which I haven't.

Who says I was thinking about sublight travel, even realtivistic travel? I was actually thinking along slightly ... different ... lines :p.
 

XXXconanXXX

Cocktails anyone?
Reaction score
284
Is that the system I saw on TV that's supposed to collide with our Solar System? Damn, that would be awesome if I was invulnerable and I could watcht eh planets colliding and stars exploding next to other stars.
 

Shadowy Fear

I have returned
Reaction score
44
More like our GALAXY conan :p.

Lol, when they collide, collisions between stars are actually rare. However, the gas clouds in the galaxies often collide, combine, and condense into new stars. A collision between another star and ours is unlikely :p. We'd still die, of course, but :rolleyes:
 

Sargon

New Member
Reaction score
83
Whee, agruments!

OK, let's get back on topic.

First, I have to say that Rinpun has been conducting himself terribly in this discussion. Every time someone brings out some evidence for evolution, he does a few things. First, he ignores the evidence and asks for more like it never existed. Second, he laughs and dismisses the argument without considering it. Third, (this happened more towards the beginning of the discussion) he insults the poster. All that I can say is that ad hominems do not belong in a debate, and that rudeness doesn't belong on this forum. I'm new here, but i can tell that this is a friendly place.
:banghead:
Anyway.

I'll go back to this nice list that Rinpun posted way, way, way back to succintly prove a large amount of evolutionary theory. Before I start, however, I will state a few (more!) things: one, the word "theory" means scientific theory. That means that we don't know all the details (in this case, it's too big for us ever to know all the details), but we have a very, very good understanding of the processes and that the theory has stood up to many, many, many, many tests. OK then. It has a ton of evidence. Second, evolution takes a really, really long time. Third, Rinpun, from what he said, knows almost nothing correct about evolutionary theory. He's basically beating a straw man. More on this later.

Rinpun said:
Well, you're being stubborn for the moment and believing you know quite a bit, so here are a few questions.

1. Where did all of our starting ground (Matter, Space, and the laws of Inertia and etc.) come from?
OK then, we don't know how the matter in the Big Bang came into existence. That's a moot point in an evolution discussion, which deals with the stuff on Earth. As for the laws, those are just rules that describe how things usually interact with other matter.

Rinpun said:
2. How did matter get so perfectly organized (the chances are way too small to point for it to take only 5 billion years, if at all)?
Do you have any idea how big a number a billion is? That is all that needs saying here.

Rinpun said:
3. Where did the energy come from (you, of course, need some to bring life, to an extent, alive)?
Matter and energy are one and the same. I have no idea where it ultimately came from, but it was all there for the Big Bang, in any rate. It's also a moot point in an evolution discussion, which, as I have said, only deals with the development of life.

Rinpun said:
4. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? I know this is asking a lot, but you should be able to answer this.
OK, waaaaay back when there was a lot of junk in the seas. Lightning would hit it, and it would usually combine and form amino acids. Those make proteins. Cells are built with largely proteins. See that description of the experiment that someone mentioned somewhere in this topic.

Rinpun said:
5. With what did the first cell/organism capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with? There was asexual, but you run into problems when you get to sexual. There will never be two organism holding the same exact genes that lets them survive AND reproduce.
Well, sine the mutation occured in an asexual organism, the two things it split into could reproduce with each other. Also, there were a ton of those cells. It could have sprung up in more than one place.

Rinpun said:
6. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? It should just live the good life, right?[\quote]

Plants and animals other than us don't have the concept of the good life that we do. Also, in creating more mouths to feed, it is ensuring the population's survival. The creature has already reproduced; as far as natural selection is concerned, it has lived to fulfil its purpose. As long sa its offspring survive, it doesn't matter what happens to the parent.

Rinpun said:
7. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? Turns out you need a DNA injection to create most of your helpful changes.[\quote]

That's because our DNA is really, really complicated from billions of years of mutations. Also, these things are very random and occur very, very slowly.

Rinpun said:
8. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? I mean, what the hey, this proves for BOTH sides.[\quote]

Not really, due to the rest of the argument for evolution.

Rinpun said:
9. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? It surely would've broken down from it's increasing fragile likeness. Think of a glass bowl that you kept dropping on the ground. If, as you're suggesting, this Evolution bowl wouldn't break on the very first drop and never get back together again, your bowl will break anyway as the mainframe breaks down. You need to evolve many "minor" changes to accompany the changes. As I repeat myself, a fish needs gills, and bacteria doesn't have gills. A fish needs a complex blood flowing system along with the blood. And of course, bacteria doesn't have this nor anything else. At the VERY least, when the bacteria decides not to create a new immunity but rather a useless organ that would somehow come into use later, why would it stay? I don't suppose a cancered individual would give birth to a baby who had cancer, right?[\quote]

Gah, you really didn't pay attention in Biology, did you. First, regarding cancer, only genes are passed on, not aquired characteristics. Second, these changed are neither fast nor premeditated. To get from bacteria to fish requires a huge chain. First you have two bacteria bonding together for mutual support. This increases, and then you have multicellular life. Graduallyl, extremely slowly, over tons of generations, tiny changes in DNA alter the survivability of certain individuals. The ones that are better suited survive more often. Over time, the random factors select things that eventually start to look like gills.

You really should make sure that your ideas of the opposing view are at all accurate. Throughtout this entire post I'm quoting, you bring up absurd ideas, most of which involve the ideas that evolution is quick and premeditated. It's not. It's slow and random.

Rinpun said:
10. How did the intermediate forms live? In resuming the previous question, the intermediate forms either have no change to the basic forms, and therefore incapable of turning into more complex forms, or they have an interesting life where they can't reproduce. In the jump to a multi-celled organism, you have to go from asexual to sexual reproduction and heck, you have to evolve all the organs--even the ones we haven't discovered yet--to come with the creature if you hope to keep it alive. A bacteria-fish hybrid ISN'T possible. If a bacteria survives underwater, does it need to evolve gills? If a bacteria survives underwater, does it need to evolve a better method of reproduction? Splitting is much more efficient.
Well, splitting produces clones. If one clone gets a disease, they ALL CAN DIE FROM IT because they're basically copies of the same (vulnerable) organism). That's bad. Also, you don't have a half-bacteria half-fish. You have a slightly different bacteria, then a few of them sticking together for mutual support, then it becomes less a colony and more an organism, and then it develops, slowly, things that allow it to breathe more easily in water. This pattern follows for other traits, and eventually it's a fish.

Rinpun said:
11. How did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

They are all useless, as you should know, in "intermediate" forms.[\quote]

Not so at all. You're just going back waaay too far in a looooong chain of intermediates. I can't answer any of the organism ones, since I'm no paleontologist, but I can tell you basically how the organs evolved.

OK, eyes. You know planarians? They have eyespots. These things basically sense light and dark, which help in figuring out when the thing's about to get eaten. What happened is that a looooong time ago, some organisms had a mutation that gave them light-sensitive cells in places. Eventually, that group figured out that when something blocks the light, they should run. That helpes them survive more than thier blind cousins. Over time, the ones whose cells could sense light more clearly (it's no good to run from every shadow you see) survived more than their more myopic cousins. Over millions and billions of years, this trait got more and more complicated. Nowadays, we have things we call eyes. They work pretty damn well, though not perfectly. If we hadn't conquered evolution through modern medecine, we might e--------ven------tu---a----lly develop better eyes.

Ears followed the same path only with vibrations. All that other stuff you mentioned worked the same way, only for protection and defense and attack.

Rinpun said:
12. Which evolved first and, somehow, worked without all the others?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?

There are many, many changes to be made when you take a step from one cell to many cells, such as cell communication.[\quote]

Look, this isn't an overnight "poof" type of process. All that stuff developed simultaneously over a few billion years. They didn't make one then start making another. Besides, the force behind evolution is randomness and the environment, not anything intelligent. You're looking at evolution as if it was intelligent design.

Rinpun said:
13. How would evolution explain mimicking? Did the plants and animals develop the idea of mimicking by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?[\quote]

The descendants of king snakes used to get eaten a lot. But some of them resembled coral snakes a bit. The predators would think that they were coral snakes and not eat them as much sa thier cousins. Eventually, they survived, and now, except for the order of the stripes, the two snakes are nearly identical. It's just natural selection.

Rinpun said:
14. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. Even if they are chemicals in the brain somewhere.[\quote]

As someone said, social interaction. Also, we don't understand the human brain well at all, so we don't know what causes fellings well. Therefore, we can't answer that one question yet.

Rinpun said:
15. How did photosynthesis evolve? It's a pretty big jump to take once you decide you want to use the sun instead of something else as the rest of the bacteria are feeding on that.
AAAAAAAH! There is NO BIG JUMP ANYWHERE IN EVOLUTION! It's sort of a ramp instead. The chemosynthetic bacteria eventually evolved the ability to convert sun to energy as sort of a side job. Eventually, they used up many of the chemicals, and the photosynthetic ones were the only ones that could survive. I won't go into any more detail, as it would be repetitive and I don't know my photosynthesis well.

Rinpun said:
16. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?[\quote]

They evolved from spore plants which evolved form more primitive spore plants which evolved from even more primitive spore plants and this continues until you reach the photosynthetic bacteria of question 15.

Rinpun said:
17. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
We can't directly observe macroevolution. It takes millions of years. However, we can indirectly observe it in the past throuhg the fossil record. We can also look at changes in stuff like the flu. If it didn't adapt to the vaccine, we wouldn't need a new vaccine every year.

Evolutionary theory got off the ground in the mid 1800's. Any predictions of macroevolution made then would be impossible to confirm because macroevolution is a huge sum of a ton of microevolution. As such, it takes millions of years to happen. We can't verify our ideas, we'll be LONG dead. Also, we don't know what the conditions will be in the future, and the environment fuels evolution, so predictions are impossible, unless you're saying something like "that will change."

Basically, the question is based off a false premise.

Whew. That was long. Do me a favor and read it through, and consider my argument. Don't write it off. Try to come up with scientific evidence that proves evolution wrong. Remember, evolution is science. You'll have to beat it with scientific evidence, not ad hominems and theology (not that there's anything wrong with theology, it's just out of place in a scientific argument).
 

Sargon

New Member
Reaction score
83
Arg! I made a coding mistake. Can someone delete that post so i can put in the right one?
 
T

ThE-eNiGmA

Guest
Tell me your kidding, that is a looong post. Anyway, nice job eviscerating his chunk of solid ground (no offense, Rinpun). I thought this discussion was dead, but somebody comes along and brings more life into it. Parthenogenesis exists! This is getting to be an exhaustive debate, but as had been said before, ultimately there is no way to win. We can infer how things work, sort of like coming into the kitchen, finding the dog sitting there looking guilty with a smear
a smear on his lip and a bowl on the floor. It doesn't take much brain power to figure out that the dog stole the soup. We can apply that same approach, with a lot more sophistication and reasoning, to evolution. Of course, someone else could have knocked the bowl over and the dog simply helped himself, but Occam's razor is comforting...the simplest explantion will do, and the dog is going to be in the doghouse.
 
R

R15I23D05D14

Guest
Interupting

I must, at the start of this post, say I have not read this entire thread, so I may be quoting someone/talking off-topic.

Item 1: The universe is inevitable.
We know it exists and planets are formed. The chances against this were astronomical. The time they had to happen in was limitless. It was inevitable, and will happen again.

Item 2: Life - the iffy thing.
Following the limitless time theory, let us assume that the universe has risen and played itself out several billion times. Given we know that life exists (types a life form) the infinite number of tries would and has produced us.

Item 3: Evolving - whoops.
Once life has begun (see Item 2) then the more efficient ones will die out, leaving several over forms. The full argument of this may come at a later date. Do any of you play Magic? Magic Website. There are several different decks, but in a tournament only several are actually inn the running and only one is "best". This has to do with luck and the environment (like life).

Item 4: What do we do?
Mind queries "Do you mean we should all commit suicide" incredulously earlier in this thread (he is looking at flaws/issues in another’s post). Suicide is an option! So is living, so are many things. People who do actually believe suicide is an option will die out in a generation or two, and then the issue will be resolved! Those who give themselves purpose will thrive and prosper.

Conclusion:
The Universe forever. Therefore random chance is completely possible. We have forever. Therefore creatures without drive - purpose - have died out. The birds that would not fly were caught on the ground!

I would like to believe I have made a Contribution. I am pretty certain I have mealy restated earlier thoughts.
 

Shadowy Fear

I have returned
Reaction score
44
Yes, good job to all three of you :p :D

Btw, though, the universe is NOT forever - at least OUR universe, for whatever that is worth.

Galactic expansion is slowly, but steadily (like evolution :p) slowing down. Eventually, gravity, although it is the weakest force in the known universe, will completely stop galactic expansion, and then reverse it, so that the galaxies are mvoing TOWARDS each other. Finally, they will all be pulled together, along with the 'rest' of the universe, and collapse into an ultramassive black hole; Omega Point, the end of the universe. Then, there are sevral theories about what happens next ('universe' traveling through wormhole and creating new universe, big bang all over again, etc.).

I think it is fair to say that the Earth and any information on it will be lost forever. :p
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Damn here come the bots again - 193 online but they are totally invisible to any stats - bunch of bots!'
  • C cubanismo:
    Re: Taco Tuesday, if there were some way to share edible tacos over the internet, technology would be complete.
    +2
  • The Helper The Helper:
    One can only wish!
  • tom_mai78101 tom_mai78101:
    I'm back from Taiwan
    +1
  • The Helper The Helper:
    I am reorganizing the site I know nobody will notice but I am not done quite yet but the main forums order has been changed and there is a new news category in Other News which is all the remaining headline news stuff not categorized - Headline News is just the stuff that shows on the main page now and the news archive is off the main forums page
  • The Helper The Helper:
    and the real archive lives off of headline news
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Monday!
  • V-SNES V-SNES:
    Happy Saturday!
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Saturday Night!
    +1

    The Helper Discord

    Members online

    Affiliates

    Hive Workshop NUON Dome World Editor Tutorials

    Network Sponsors

    Apex Steel Pipe - Buys and sells Steel Pipe.
    Top