Man Vs. Monkey!!

[wolf116]

It's the wrong kind of changing though. It's changing within an already established DNA code (which is what I meant by bacteria changing into bacteria i.e. it's changing alright but it's not changing into something new).

I'm not saying that we evolved from chimps either or any other monkey/ape/whatever that is alive today. I know what the theory says about it being a common ancestor and I get equally frustrated when creationists say that evolution states we evolved from monkeys.

I just believe that there are certain limits to change. I remember reading once that some scientists believed that mosquitos little sucker thing (what is that called by the way?) evolved from an extra leg that was on the face. I also remember laughing quite a bit afterwards.

I understand for the most part how the theory of evolution works, that through small changes come bigger changes over a vast amount of time and I can envision it throughout the whole process. I just don't think it's as bullet proof as most think it is and would not be surprised at all if a better and different theory trumped it.

By the way don't you think it's odd Aboleo that a Christian is defending evolution and an atheist is playing the Devil's advocate? I find that highly amusing.

DNA dose not have special parts of the code that can't be changed.
If after every reproductive process that takes place a small change in code occurs, then surely after billions of years the code will be unrecognizable from the original.

 

[KarmaSutra]

So as STAN himself would say...Excelsior! :rockon:

I thought it was The Gore-bot who said that? With his silly cape, always chasing after MAN-BEAR-PIG like Wil-E-Coyote after Road Runner?

 

[Desert Fox]

This thread is pointless...

All I see are people who have a background in science arguing with people who are ignorant of how evolution really works and what it is.

Nobody is going to change anyone's mind when you are arguing with imbeciles that (a) lack rationality and (b) are liars. They are making up statements about evolution that are simply aren't true (for example, DNA replication DOES make mistakes, esp as we get older) and people are arguing them based on these lies. That's just a waste of everyone's time.

 

[wootapotky]

DNA dose not have special parts of the code that can't be changed.
If after every reproductive process that takes place a small change in code occurs, then surely after billions of years the code will be unrecognizable from the original.

I know that. What I meant is that there are only so many changes that can occur and every example that I have ever seen has been an example of data being lost, the moth losing one of it's colors. To get something new there needs to be mutation. However, the overwhelming majority of mutations are not advantageous and mutations are rare to begin with.

 

[wootapotky]

This thread is pointless...

All I see are people who have a background in science arguing with people who are ignorant of how evolution really works and what it is.

Nobody is going to change anyone's mind when you are arguing with imbeciles that (a) lack rationality and (b) are liars. They are making up statements about evolution that are simply aren't true (for example, DNA replication DOES make mistakes, esp as we get older) and people are arguing them based on these lies. That's just a waste of everyone's time.

No sh!t DNA replication makes mistakes, but that doesn't prove macroevolution because it isn't advantageous.

Macroevolution is just conjecture at this point in time. I know the rationale behind the theory of evolution. But that doesn't prove it's true. There's lots of stuff that has had rational logic at the time but turned out wrong because of later knowledge.

 

[wolf116]

I know that. What I meant is that there are only so many changes that can occur and every example that I have ever seen has been an example of data being lost, the moth losing one of it's colors. To get something new there needs to be mutation. However, the overwhelming majority of mutations are not advantageous and mutations are rare to begin with.

What do you mean, 'only so many changes can occur'? Do you think someone placed a limit on the amount of changes possible?

Of cause 99.99999% of mutations are disadvantageous, that's why evolution is such a slow process.

 

[Desert Fox]

No sh!t DNA replication makes mistakes, but that doesn't prove macroevolution because it isn't advantageous.

See this is what I'm talking about. He doesn't understand DNA replication at all.

First, whether or not something is advantageous is determined by the environment.

Second, maybe you meant the RESULTS of errors in DNA replication, meaning the results we see (phenotypes that survive and are expressed), are not advantageous?

Wrong again.

The "results" of errors in DNA replicaiton are ALWAYS advantageous, otherwise they would not have survived. It is important to note that out of the total errors that are made in DNA replication, 99.99999999% of them are translated into a disadvantageous phenotype...hence why evolution acts strongly only over time, esp in organisms w/long life spans.

To give an example since that seems to be able to shut you up:

(1) Plants w/fire-resistant seeds

- plants used to die in fires
- plants had DNA replication errors or mutations due to UV or another source
- some of these errors resulted in harder shells on some seeds, at first only a few seeds
- fires would come and kill the plants, including their seeds
- the harder seeds would survive, crack due to the fire, and produce offspring
- these offspring would go on to produce more offspring with harder seeds/seeds w/thicker coats/etc.
- HOWEVER <---THIS IS IMPORTANT
- if this happened in an area WITHOUT fires, then the fire resistant mutation would eventually be selected out of nature because no fire would be present to break dormancy of the seeds.

Want an animal example?

(2) Tiktaalik

The missing link between fish and amphibians.

I hope you can go home now and accept all this KNOWLEDGE, but I know you will just be all ignorant and come back to debate with your weak mind that was filled with little bits and pieces you heard from the news or made up in your head.

I hope you surprise me.

 

[wootapotky]

What do you mean, 'only so many changes can occur'? Do you think someone placed a limit on the amount of changes possible?

Of cause 99.99999% of mutations are disadvantageous, that's why evolution is such a slow process.

What I mean is that the changes which have been observed have been within certain limitations. Take for example the bacteria, it has technically changed when there is a stronger resistant strain now instead of the weaker strain, but it did not gain anything which it did not already have. There was already bacteria in the native population with the differences that helped them to survive.

 

[wootapotky]

The "results" of errors in DNA replicaiton are ALWAYS advantageous, otherwise they would not have survived.

Wrong. Mutations, or errors in DNA replication, are almost always disadvantageous to the survival of the host. DNA has mutation repair in it, the mutations that get by are not "advantageous," they simply get by.

1) Plants w/fire-resistant seeds

- plants used to die in fires
- plants had DNA replication errors or mutations due to UV or another source
- some of these errors resulted in harder shells on some seeds, at first only a few seeds
- fires would come and kill the plants, including their seeds
- the harder seeds would survive, crack due to the fire, and produce offspring
- these offspring would go on to produce more offspring with harder seeds/seeds w/thicker coats/etc.
- HOWEVER <---THIS IS IMPORTANT
- if this happened in an area WITHOUT fires, then the fire resistant mutation would eventually be selected out of nature because no fire would be present to break dormancy of the seeds.

Fvcking sh!t. I know about examples like this. But once again, this is not an example of macroevolution. The seeds are still goddamn seeds only with harder shells. Now sure this can be extrapolated to the idea that over a long period of time a significant change would happen, but it's still only extrapolation and not proof. THAT'S ALL I'VE BEEN SAYING. I AM NOT DENYING THE POSSIBILITY/PROBABILITY THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE. I AM JUST SAYING THAT EVOLUTION AS IS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD IS FAR FROM THE FACT IT'S MADE OUT TO BE.

I hope you can go home now and accept all this KNOWLEDGE, but I know you will just be all ignorant and come back to debate with your weak mind that was filled with little bits and pieces you heard from the news or made up in your head.

I hope you surprise me

Fvck off with your b!tch ass tone. No one else that I have been responding to has been responding disrespectfully, it's when people start getting disrespectful that the extreme polarity results from.

 

[Desert Fox]

Fvck off with your b!tch ass tone. No one else that I have been responding to has been responding disrespectfully, it's when people start getting disrespectful that the extreme polarity results from.

Yes, "b1tch ass tone" isn't disrespectful at all.

I also like how you ignored my Tiktaalik example...that's exactly what you're looking for. A fish --> "fishopod" --> amphibian. Is it not?

Wrong. Mutations, or errors in DNA replication, are almost always disadvantageous to the survival of the host. DNA has mutation repair in it, the mutations that get by are not "advantageous," they simply get by.

I also like how you ignored the stuff I wrote after the part you quoted:

The "results" of errors in DNA replicaiton are ALWAYS advantageous, otherwise they would not have survived. It is important to note that out of the total errors that are made in DNA replication, 99.99999999% of them are translated into a disadvantageous phenotype...hence why evolution acts strongly only over time, esp in organisms w/long life spans.

I pasted it here for your viewing pleasure.

 

[iqqi]

Evolution happened. Face it. Want proof? Look in the fossil record. Look at homology in organisms. Look at the genomes of animals and recognize the similarities and differences that separate species, but all point to a common ancestor that went back billions of years. Pick up any bio textbook and read it.

If you don't believe in evolution, it is up to you to propose an alternative. If you think God made everything, then (a) you are a lunatic, and (b) prove it. Can't prove it? Then you convinction isn't worth sh1t. At least evolution has mountains of evidence (<---this is key! I know you creationists aren't familiar with this word) supporting it compared to creationism. And yes, intelligent design is just some pretty rhetoric for creationism.

That said, let's open the Bible. Let me go get my Bible that I got as a gift. It's currently keeping my piano level. Be right back.

Alright let's look at Genesis shall we?

"In the beginning God created the heavens......

blah blah blah

Let there be light
Let there be earth
Let there be water
Let there be man
Let's throw in some animals too
Syphilis? Why not. Let's add some of that
And here are some cows and stuff for the men to eat"

So that's part 1 of Genesis. God is pretty awesome. I mean, he said "Let there be <insert thing here>" and it just happened. AWESOME! Totally unexplained and requires you to have blind faith (aka ignorance) in it.

Part 2. Adam and Eve:

more bullsh1t making stuff out of thin air.

Part 3. fall of man

Talking snake....enough said. This is all bullsh1t.

Any adult who believes in talking snakes, something coming out of nothing, then using that same argument AGAINST evolution...is a grade A RETARD.

I rest my case in less than 2 pages of my piano wedge. Back it goes!

Haha, funniest post of the month award!

Great cliff notes version.

I might have to use this myself. I put my favorite part in bold.

 

[wootapotky]

Yes, "b1tch ass tone" isn't disrespectful at all.

I also like how you ignored my Tiktaalik example...that's exactly what you're looking for. A fish --> "fishopod" --> amphibian. Is it not?



I also like how you ignored the stuff I wrote after the part you quoted:

The "results" of errors in DNA replicaiton are ALWAYS advantageous, otherwise they would not have survived. It is important to note that out of the total errors that are made in DNA replication, 99.99999999% of them are translated into a disadvantageous phenotype...hence why evolution acts strongly only over time, esp in organisms w/long life spans.

I pasted it here for your viewing pleasure.

Man, I just lost a whole post responding to this so I think it's time to go to bed after this. I'll give the cliff notes.

-Don't appreciate patronizing and blatant insults to intelligence, resulting in responding disrespectfully
-Will respond respectfully from now on if no insults
-I engage in discussions like this because I like to get both sides of argument although I pretty much know both sides already, saw mainly one side being represented, so played Devil's advocate because without the flip side there is false affirmation, scientists HAVE TO THINK OF THE FLIP SIDE or else serious holes will be left in their work
-I haven't responded to Tiktaalik because I have to research both sides of it first
-I believe the theory of evolution is an important step in the advancement of biology, whether it is wholely proven or discarded for a better theory
-mutations are not always advantageous because the majority actually reduce the odds of successful reproduction such as sickle cell anemia, the errors that remain are a result of the DNA repair missing them as 90%, I believe, of the errors in DNA replication are repaired
-Now hopefully this post goes through, LOL.

 

[ketostix]

Man, I just lost a whole post responding to this so I think it's time to go to bed after this. I'll give the cliff notes.

-Don't appreciate patronizing and blatant insults to intelligence, resulting in responding disrespectfully
-Will respond respectfully from now on if no insults
-I engage in discussions like this because I like to get both sides of argument although I pretty much know both sides already, saw mainly one side being represented, so played Devil's advocate because without the flip side there is false affirmation, scientists HAVE TO THINK OF THE FLIP SIDE or else serious holes will be left in their work
-I haven't responded to Tiktaalik because I have to research both sides of it first
-I believe the theory of evolution is an important step in the advancement of biology, whether it is wholely proven or discarded for a better theory
-mutations are not always advantageous because the majority actually reduce the odds of successful reproduction such as sickle cell anemia, the errors that remain are a result of the DNA repair missing them as 90%, I believe, of the errors in DNA replication are repaired
-Now hopefully this post goes through, LOL.

Your making good arguments. Macro-evolution doesn't make sense when you strand back and look at the big picture. Sure if you get bogged down in the details and the theories built upon theories it makes sense, but not if you look at the big picture. For example, evolution is based on gene mutation. But if a species was reproducing at the rates that would produce the most mutations, it would be very successful in it's enviroment and mutations would be unnecessary and counterproductive. But if the enviroment became harsh for the species, there wouldn't be time for mutations to happen before the population was reduced and eliminatated. Or the claim humans have common ancestory with apes, then why didn't the apes evolve as well but instead remained apes. Macroevolution is full of undemonstrated theories and far from a fact.

 

[wolf116]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAXeVFeHwEA&feature=related
A very interesting series on sexual evolution.

Watch all 6 and then tell me evolution is bogus.

This series needs to be viewed by anyone considering this topic.

 

[Last Man Standing]

The rationale behind evolution is self-evident and thoroughly demonstrated.

Evolution, at the macro level, as a fact, has not been proven nor demonstrated! You guys are discussing changes and mutations, but these are changes and mutations within a certain species but fail to explain the overall premise of evolution theory whereby a new organism is created from another source/species via mutations. Every species has a genetic code and changes and mutations happen within that genetic code, but it does not create a new genetic code. The question I'm trying to get answered is who/what created the codes in all species? Where did the genetic code of the sperm come from?

To keep everyone interested, I would like to keep this discussion at the general level and not just have biologists talk details at the micro level - the purpose of this thread was to discuss the origin of man!

The grand scheme of evolutionary theory has not been proven, because within their framework or premise of the theory, it takes millions of years to observe this at the MACRO level. And by scientific standards, if it is not observable then it cannot be proven. This is why they reject creationism - so by the same rationale they should reject evolution as well! BUT, they are teaching children in schools that we came from apes? Why so, if it has not been proven? This is what needs to be discuss!ed here!

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Any adult who believes in talking snakes, ......is a grade A RETARD.

but dude, what about the harry potter books? they had talking snakes in those, doesn't that...wait,, never mind..

 

[Punisha]

Cant resist: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VntFEWF8I8A

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n-N6Rqc_Jk

this kind of goes in line with the alien impregnation theory...

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

One very common mistake the home-schoolers make is that evolution isn't simply reliant upon a genetic cause. DNA does in fact mutate to increase variety in species, but the X factor will always be environmental changes that select in or out a particular variation. It's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the species best able to adapt to a changed or changing environment. Up until the late Cretaceous period reptiles the size of your house littered the planet. At some point something dramatically changed the environment. While the details of that event may never be known, what is known is that anything with a body mass greater than a few hundred pounds died off in a very short period. The environment selected them out, not their DNA. The moths that were affected by the industrial pollution someone else here mentioned were similarly selected out. It was not due to some spontaneous change in their DNA to compensate for a color shift in their environment. The lighter moths were simply not eaten by predators as often as the newly de-camouflaged darker ones and therefore were free to breed more readily. DNA does not surrepticiously change in accordance to environment, environment delimits which DNA will replicate.

The problem I have with the creationist vs. evolutionist debate is that both camps are so polarized that neither is willing to give an inch. Creationists (see fundamentalist christians) see evolution as a threat to their belief system and have the natural backlash anyone with a strong ego-investment would. On the other side Evolutionists want to use natural selection, et. al. to verify their own intellectual positions and poke at the spiritual. Neither side wants to concede a point at any cost because it validates the other at their own expense. The evolutionist lacks the spiritual and the creationist lacks the scientific.

The answer is in between. I'm not stupid enough to close my mind off to the possibility of the meta-physical, but neither am I foolish enough to ignore what's empirically provable that's right in front of my nose. It's not people with questions that scare me, it's people who have none that do. Remain the perpetual student and you'll maneuver around zealots and extremists of all stripes.

Evolutionary motivations for behavior, etc. does not excuse one from accepting responsibility for the consequences of that behavior. Neither does the socially constructed notion of morality change the basic biochemical nature of the prompts for that behavior. This is the dilemma that LMS and the rest of the home-schoolers get a headache from. They assume an understanding, or an accepting of an evolutionary basis for behavior excuses a person from behaving in anti-social ways. The irony of this is that it's just the social nature of human beings that alters the environment that should select out certain behavioral traits. The answer is that nature and nurture go hand in hand, neither can deny the other's influence on a being as a whole. But hey, don't let that stop the ignorance, have at it guys - or at least until close this thread for being quasi-religious. It makes for some great comedy.

 

[Deep Dish]

Evolution is NOT a FACT. It is NOT A FACT. I had a physics teacher that was talking about this a couple years back that Biologists and Chemists like to say that it is a fact but that in no ways whatsoever is it a fact (I will also qualify his statement by adding that he is an atheist and found the religious people in my class to be highly amusing). First of all, macroevolution is not observable. Microevolution is. But Macroevolution is just an extrapolation of Micro.

Scientists like to say that evolution is a fact like gravity, to which my teacher guffawed. Gravity, in the sense of explaining the reasons why it happens, IS a theory. However, the act that gravity performs, is an OBSERVABLE and REPEATABLE FACT. Evolution is not. It is a THEORY that explains well how life got to be to the point that we are at, but nothing more.

You are scientifically illiterate. People misunderstand the word "theory" and underestimate how history is testable. Evolution is an observable and repeatable fact; that just because the accumulated noticeable effects happened in the past and far too slowly for the human lifespan, does not in any way prevent it from being a testable fact. In science, you can form hypotheses and test it retroactively to previous events centuries or millenia ago. Theories can never become law; theories explain, laws describe. An equation can never become a theory and evolution, regardless how proven true, can never become a law. I feel an essay coming on; not necessarily regarding evolution per se but about scientific illiteracy, which is fatally too common.