![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 | |
Very Mad Bird
![]() Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
|
Quote:
![]() Besides, an atheist can also propose a new theory. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]That's why I clarified with "scientificly accepted theory." ![]() ![]() ![]() But at this point there are only two theories with any weigth scientifically, and they are evolution theory and it's many branches; and creationism with it's branches. I'm still wondering at this though: If natural selection works as Larry said. How is it that the originally unmutated species survives along with the mutated species? How did a species that had cold blood develop the ability to make it's blood warm? Why did the cold blooded creatures, and the warm blooded mutants BOTH survive if natural selection is supposed to weed out the kind better suited to it's environment? This hasn't happened once or twice, but the whole way through. We still have insects, jellyfish and molluscs, arachnids, reptiles, fish, avians, mammals. Every link in the chain. Unless each and every creature has a "common ancestor" that we're conveniently yet to find evidence of. The nasal shape situation I can understand. But how does a single being celled become a multicelled being? Greater yet, if you are an atheistic evolutionist, how does an inanimate speck of dust just become a life form by chance? DARWIN, when he put forth his theory DID NOT SUGGEST IT COULD ALL HAPPEN BY CHANCE. Evolutionists who put that idea forth are in direct contradiction with the theories originator. [ 02-25-2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ] |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | ||
Emerald Dragon
![]() Join Date: September 25, 2001
Location: NY , NY
Age: 64
Posts: 960
|
originaly by Yorick in the first evolution thread.
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
\"How much do I love you?? I\'ll tell you one thing, it\'d be a whole hell of a lot more if you stopped nagging me and made me a friggin sandwich.\" |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#33 | |
Very Mad Bird
![]() Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
|
Quote:
I accept some have APTITUDES for certain skills more than others, but these are not defined limitations. Every healthy human should be able to sing for example. Mental and psychological inhibitions prevent this. If it's true in one field it can be true in others. I do not accept that a smart person like Einstein is more advanced than the next. Especially when someone like Einstein is deficient in other areas, like relationships. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#34 | ||||
Anubis
![]() Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Up in the Freedomland Alps
Age: 60
Posts: 2,474
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also interesting is that if you take the gene responsible for growing en eye at the right place from a fly embryo and replace it by the similar gene from a mouse ... the fly will still grow a perfect fly eye at the right fly location. We can all share genes ! [img]smile.gif[/img] Quote:
Quote:
__________________
[img]\"http://grumble.free.fr/img/romuald.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br />The missing link between ape and man is us. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
[ 02-25-2003, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
|
![]() |
#36 | |
Anubis
![]() Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Up in the Freedomland Alps
Age: 60
Posts: 2,474
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
[img]\"http://grumble.free.fr/img/romuald.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br />The missing link between ape and man is us. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
40th Level Warrior
![]() Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Yet More interesting reading - took me forever to catch up from just 14 hours ago. Some notes:
Wonderful TREATISE, Moraine. As an atheist, I want to point out that I don't *have* to believe in evolution. I believe in evolution because it makes a lot of sense to me and in the world I live in. I look at the evolution of a horse over time and I see it as the beautiful wonderful random chance choas of gene replication meets environmental adaptability process by which life continues. I choose not to believe in God because the existence of a god simply makes no sense to me. I'm just that kind of person. When I'm hiking and I come across a perfectly cylindrical hole in a rock, I look up for a tree or cliff that the rock may have sat under for years where falling water dug the hole. I don't look up to the sky and wonder what spirit swooped down and put the rock with the hole here. I'm not being snide, I just don't personify the world around me, nor do I think any eternal being like or similar to man man created the ground I stand on. The ground seems eternal enough for me all on its own. And no, evolutionists don't have The Big Bang as a creation story. I, in fact, think the Big Bang is likely part of a recurrent pattern of expansion and contraction of the material in the eternal universe. I see religion as a social tool that developed for the good of communities. I think it is a good rock for most people to base their moral code on. I think it answers many otherwise unanswerable questions and fears people do not want to address everyday. I am also an intellectual elitist who thinks that while others need this, I do not. I am fine with accepting my mortality, choosing to live a good life anyway, and moving on past the God issue without too much worry. I feel I will immediately cease to be upon death, and will be nothing but food for worms unless some kind soul has my carcass burned according to my wishes. Not that I'd know. To continue the debate regarding evolution, I'd like to throw in a wonderful website I found detailing that evolution is both fact and theory: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html Let's back off and go at this whole thing bit by bit. Creationists, what parts of genetics do you accept. 1. Do you accept recombination and the Punnet Square used by Mendel - the matrix for taking parent genes and combining them to predict offspring genetics and percentages? 2. What about mutation - that sometimes there is a random screw-up in the genes, making the offspring a "mutation" that has a characteristic falling outside the Punnet Square prediction? 3. What about genetic drift? For an online workshop experiment on this, see: http://www.biology.arizona.edu/evolu...ift/drift.html Finally, I'll point out that I see evidence in the modern day: In bacteria and viruses, where the generations occur fast enough that we can trace the genetic drift and sometimes witness evolution. The AIDS virus has mutated over 8 times since it was discovered in the US in 1984. In the past 10 years, hospitals have discovered "new" germs in hospitals that are immune to alcohol sterilization. In invasive species, I see natural selection at work. Zebra mussels have no natural predators on this continent. They have overpopulated most Great Lakes, with as many as 10,000 found in a growing colony with 1 native mussel buried at the bottom. They have so overpopulated lake Champlain that it is being depleted of oxygen and nutrients, affecting the other life in the Lake. Before man set foot on Hawaii the largest mammal was a bat. Since man has introduced invasive species, such as cats, Hawaii has lost nearly half its avian population to extinction. These are human-made problems of course, but they evidence how an animal "new" to an environment can have favorable characteristics. Thankfully, when such mutations occur in nature, there is only one of the new species, and it takes time to become dominant, giving the environment time to reach equilibrium. |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 | |
Very Mad Bird
![]() Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
|
Quote:
![]() It's like how humans rate a dogs intelligence by how obedient it is. Yet we would deride a human that slavishly followed the leader as a dog does. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
![]() Join Date: October 29, 2001
Location: North Carolina
Age: 62
Posts: 3,257
|
I have to admit I'm impressed at how this discussion has progressed. While a lot of the same arguments have been presented, we have managed to avoid the "hamster wheel" effect of just going round and round saying the same thing over and over again. I've seen many new - and interesting - perspectives and ideas put forth so far.
I especially want to address comments made by Moiraine, Lord Kathan, and Draconia. Moiraine - I was also very impressed with your opening treatise in this second thread. That was very elegantly written and thought provoking. You put forth good, sound logic for your reasoning and - surprisingly - I found myself agreeing with most of what you said. I still don't believe apes and man have a common ancestor - I believe we have a common Creator who made us similar for reasons of His choosing that we are only just now beginning to understand. In that light, I certainly don't find the concept of a "shared heritage" between the two species as threatening as I may have before. Lord Kathan - I think your observation about Christians becoming more "accepting" of evolution is correct. As has been pointed out many times now...evolution encompasses much more than just the origination of our species. I think Christians may be realizing that they can "agree" with some aspects of evolution without abandoning their belief in Creation. Science and religion do not have to be "mutually exclusive". In fact, quite the opposite is true. Draconia - You hit the mark dead-on with your comments in the original thread. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Why? Because GOD is the one who determined what the Laws of Science would be when He created the universe. The universe, Earth, and our ecology are incredibly intricate and complex . Yet there are specific patterns of behavior and interaction directing this vast arena. These interactions follow specific rules and guidelines which mankind has been able to "discover" and study for himself - thus gaining a better understanding of the world around him. There are still "unexplained phenomena" - because we haven't "learned" everything yet...but once we do, we will find the same logical order can be applied to these phenomena as well. Does this "disprove" the existence of God? Since everything seems to be working just fine on it's own? In my opinion, just the opposite is true. God is the one who created this underlying order. He already knows all the answers. And He has given us the intelligence and aptitude to "discover and learn" these "answers" for ourselves. The very fact that everything DOES seem to be "working just fine" is further proof (to me, anyway) that God does exist - and is content to quietly direct the play of our lives from behind the scenes.
__________________
[img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 | |
Emerald Dragon
![]() Join Date: September 25, 2001
Location: NY , NY
Age: 64
Posts: 960
|
Quote:
__________________
\"How much do I love you?? I\'ll tell you one thing, it\'d be a whole hell of a lot more if you stopped nagging me and made me a friggin sandwich.\" |
|
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Evolution of Dance? | robertthebard | General Discussion | 1 | 05-12-2006 10:21 AM |
Turok:Evolution | SomeGuy | Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) | 1 | 06-30-2003 11:31 AM |
Evolution | Moiraine | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 156 | 02-25-2003 04:19 AM |
Pearl Jam - Do The Evolution | uss | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 6 | 09-14-2002 10:52 PM |
Evolution Dun Exist Because... | Rikard | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 65 | 11-04-2001 03:16 PM |