This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Evolution.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Neffi
I'm not sure what you mean. Our lack of understanding the situation means that we can prove a theory about it?
We understand it. I don't know where you pulled that from. It's just that changes are so gradual, that it's hard to consider a species unique just because of one. Should we consider white and blacks different species because whites evolved lighter skin tones to deal with different levels of vitamin D production in different environments? Where to draw the line to consider a species a species is something that must be looked at on a per-species basis, so it's hard to define how many species there were, because we can't directly observe extinct things.
However gradual it does happen, there should be some change.
There are. Did you even try Googling "observed speciation"? Aside from there being a massive amount of species present on the earth, far more than you think, there are subtle changes happening. The problem is, you're denying it because you haven't seen it personally, but it's not strange considering you're not a biologist studying this stuff.
It's simply too gradual to expect a new species to pop up in your neighborhood.
Post by
MyTie
it's hard to consider a species unique just because of one.
I'm losing a little faith in your understanding here Neffi... A species is... A group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing furtile offspring. Evolution would have to somehow make a new species, one incapable of breeding with the first. This is where evolution gets a little dicy, and it doesnt stop there.
It's simply too gradual to expect a new species to pop up in your neighborhood.
Here's fishiness again. You're saying, if I can't find evidence, that's ok, I shouldn't be able to. Also, are you considereing my 'neighborhood' to be all archaological evidence of the past 8K years?
Post by
MyTie
Neffi, I'm gonna go ahead and stop now. I admit, you know a great deal of what you are talking about, but if you want to be more convincing, you are going to have to come up with more difinitive evidence, which is what the
theory
of evolution lacks.
However, your debate skills are tip top. I had to manuver you into the defensive by opening with questions because it was safer for my arguement. Don't let people do that in a debate. Always close with a question if your on the ropes.
Post by
Neffi
You're arguing that you're not seeing speciation in front of your face. If you're that ignorant about evolution, you don't belong in he debate at all. Speciation is subtle and gradual. It happens in some corners of the world, but that's it. You simply won't see it happening. And you use that as proof that it can't happen?
I'm losing a little faith in your understanding here Neffi... A species is... A group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing furtile offspring. Evolution would have to somehow make a new species, one incapable of breeding with the first. This is where evolution gets a little dicy, and it doesnt stop there.
Textbook definitions are wrong. There are plenty of cases where new species develop entirely capable of breeding with the last. The development of not allowing interbreeding is an evolutionary one to stop the new species from being polluted by the old, inferior genes. It doesn't always happen in the same way: it can be a simple psychological force that makes the new species unattracted to the old. And it certainly isn't automatic, in that it doesn't just happen when a new species differentiates from its former species.
Post by
MyTie
Yeah, I'm not going there dude. How would you like some pie and coffee?
Post by
Neffi
However, your debate skills are tip top. I had to manuver you into the defensive by opening with questions because it was safer for my arguement. Don't let people do that in a debate. Always close with a question if your on the ropes.
I'm totally ignorant when it comes to the art of debate. Thanks for the tip.
---
For the sake of everyone else, I want to leave a simple comment for them to consider. I don't care about your objection to it, so don't argue with me. Consider it for yourself.
Reality is undoubtedly not a matter of opinion. Things don't happen because we think they should or want them to. Things just happen. It's not up to us.
How do you justify claiming to believe in something just because it's the tradition? How do you justify claiming to know something integral about reality just because some people consider it important?
It's important to study reality, and only make assumptions when you've observed them and the evidence necessary for them. Securing a grasp on reality is a matter of observance. Answer for yourself and only yourself how you can justify claiming to know something without that observance or any real evidence behind somebody else's claim of that observance.
Post by
blademeld
Yes it is. If you recognize natural selection, then you recognize it can be responsible for creating changes, even small ones. Those changes are the front of evolution.
And don't even try to bring micro vs macro into this. If you accept micro-evolution (the development of sub-species from parent groups), then you accept macro-evolution, because it's nothing more than the process of micro-evolution over a larger time period.
I can recognize natural selection and its ability to promote certain features.
I do not, however, have to necessarily agree that changes in features are evolution in terms of missing and present genes. I could still claim that the genes are merely turned "off."
Also, I don't believe in evolution as a scientific method, there is no definitive proof for evolution, the only scientifically sound, not valid mind you, way to prove this is to record changes over centuries where a species can be proven to be from the same root from recorded observation than genetic and fossil evidence or comparison of the different breeds in the same species.
Post by
Neffi
The genes are turned off. Chickens have the genetic information to develop scales and teeth. We have the genetic information for tails, scales, and all sorts of &*!@. That's how DNA changes work.
Also, I don't believe in evolution as a scientific method, there is no definitive proof for evolution, the only scientifically sound, not valid mind you, way to prove this is to record changes over centuries where a species can be proven to be from the same root from recorded observation than genetic and fossil evidence or comparison of the different breeds in the same species.
How so? Do we need to actually look at the quarks inside a proton with our eyes? Do we need to observe orbital patterns of electrons?
Post by
123022
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
The genes are turned off.
That's how DNA changes work.
I recognize that, I've stated that.
That doesn't prove evolution.
That was my point.
the only scientifically sound, not valid mind you
How so? Do we need to actually look at the quarks inside a proton with our eyes? Do we need to observe orbital patterns of electrons?
Yes.
Post by
Neffi
The genes are turned off. Chickens have the genetic information to develop scales and teeth. We have the genetic information for tails, scales, and all sorts of &*!@. That's how DNA changes work.
Let me expand on that. More radical DNA changes can and do happen through mutation. Species can gain or lose chromosomes. Ever hear of Down Syndrome? It's a disease in which the DNA is genetically mutated to have one extra chromosome.
Of course, in that specific case, the mutation is negative. And if given the chance (not nurtured by modern technology), the people that develop it would die out to natural selection.
That's the process of evolution, right before your eyes (that is, if you know somebody with Downs).
Post by
Neffi
I recognize that, I've stated that.
That doesn't prove evolution.
That was my point.
Evolutionary change of the makeup of a species doesn't prove evolution is happening?
Post by
MyTie
Because some DNA is deficient does not mean it mutates.... ack... no... im not in this anymore.
Post by
Neffi
Because some DNA is deficient does not mean it mutates.... ack... no... im not in this anymore.
That's the definition of a mutation. The DNA changed during replication and an extra chromosome popped up. Mutation is nothing more than a mistake in the copying of the DNA when the cell is created.
Post by
ASHelmy
I would like to add that I don't believe in God just because my parents do.If I did then I wouldn't believe in evolution, cause where I live, most people just point blank refuse to even debate evolution :D. I believe in God because it makes perfect sense, and there are plenty of evidence :D. ( let's not turn this into a flame war :p)
Post by
123022
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
That's the process of evolution, right before your eyes.
So people with down syndrome aren't humans because they have "evolved" into another set?
If they are still "human" according to you, then you have to accept that it's not a proof of evolution but merely the proof of mutation.
Evolutionary change of the makeup of a species doesn't prove evolution is happening?
Can we not use the word itself to define and prove it?
That's like saying "a cake is a cake."
Post by
Neffi
I would like to add that I don't believe in God just because my parents do.If I did then I wouldn't believe in evolution, cause where I live, most people just point blank refuse to even debate evolution :D. I believe in God because it makes perfect sense, and there are plenty of evidence :D. ( let's not turn this into a flame war :p)
Tons of evidence. God came and granted my prayer last night. Then we discoed.
Post by
Neffi
That's the process of evolution, right before your eyes.
So people with down syndrome aren't humans because they have "evolved" into another set?
If they are still "human" according to you, then you have to accept that it's not a proof of evolution but merely the proof of mutation.
Once again, a pile if ignorance. Look up the term speciation on Wikipedia. Change doesn't instantly create a new species.
Evolutionary change of the makeup of a species doesn't prove evolution is happening?
Can we not use the word itself to define and prove it?
That's like saying "a cake is a cake."
But that's the problem with your argument. You want to recognize that change is possible, but at the same time deny that the fundamental force of that change exists.
If you believe in micro-evolution (what you're arguing for), then you by default believe in macro-evolution (what I'm talking about), because the two are one and the same, only observed on different scales of time and scope.
Post by
ASHelmy
I would like to add that I don't believe in God just because my parents do.If I did then I wouldn't believe in evolution, cause where I live, most people just point blank refuse to even debate evolution :D. I believe in God because it makes perfect sense, and there are plenty of evidence :D. ( let's not turn this into a flame war :p)
Tons of evidence. God came and granted my prayer last night. Then we discoed.
LOL :D. Well no, you see, the problem with people who believe in God is usually that they will insist on taking their religion as man kind first saw it ( 1400 or 2000 years ago) and use the same terms that God used with the people of these times. That is why, most of the time, smart people or even people who read a lot refuse to believe in God (I am not saying those who believe in god are not smart).
That is why I made this thread, cause I don't believe that the universe was created in an instant just as we see it this day, no, I believe in the big bang, and in evolution, and what I am trying to do is convince people who believe in God to also believe in these theories and the other way around :D.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.