1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Evolution

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by jsmoke, Jun 24, 2017.

  1. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 5,366

    You mean those dragons that didn't get a place on Noah's ark?
     
  2. 4K8KW10

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 4,210

    No, I didn't imagine that the creationists believe the dinosaurs and dragons is the same! :eek: Whatever they were, they roamed, for sure, 100%.
     
  3. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,206

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    You don't know what a theory is, do you? Nobody who has even the most basic understanding of science would use the phrase "it is just a theory" in a scientific context other than as a joke. Theories are the goal of science.

    Granted, it is possible that a mischevious or malicious hyper-powerful entity is faking all the evidence for their own ends, but that's not a theory. It's a non-falsifiable hypothesis with absolutely no supporting evidence, i.e. it's useless.
     
  4. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,206

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    Do you realise that there's no such word as "Evolutionist" and using it only makes you look silly?

    There are plenty of conspiracy believer sites on the net. That one is no different. Substitute "Illuminati", "Secret World Government", "Aliens", "Big Oil" or whatever. For example, did you know that various people have invented perpetual motion machines that generate energy from nothing and they've all been killed by assassins working for the Big Oil Conspiracy? I read that on a website yesterday. Shocking news!
     
  5. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 59,080

    How do you mean? there is a dictionary entry for it.
     
  6. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,206

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    I don't need an academic qualification to disagree with the existence of scorpions. I've never seen one. All the evidence of scorpions I've seen was faked by the global conspiracy.

    The chicken and egg question has an obvious answer - chickens were not the first animals to use eggs, therefore eggs existed before chickens. It's like asking which came first, the car or the wheel? The wheel, obviously, because there were carts and wheelbarrows and suchlike long before there were cars.

    If you're talking specifically about chicken eggs, then the answer is still the egg although it's not a meaningful answer. At some point a not-quite-chicken laid an egg that hatched a just-about-a-chicken, but drawing a line between the two would be a bit arbitrary.
     
  7. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,206

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    Dictionaries record words that are used and/or which they have pressure applied on them to include. If enough people declare that "blidge" is a word meaning "to paint something blue", then "blidge" will be put into dictionaries with that definition.

    The only use of the word "Evolutionist" as a noun is by conspiracy believers as an ad hominem attack on people who don't share their conspiracy beliefs. There are enough of them with enough power to get the word into some dictionaries, but it's not a real word and using it makes it clear that the person is a conspiracy believer, i.e. silly.
     
  8. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,650

    But chickens only come from chicken eggs, so the dillema is still there.


    Gradual evolution of the cell, did it take millions of years?


    Even if scientists have worked out the pathway of the cell or cracked the code of the cell, and they were able to make an exact working copy of one in the lab, yeah that would be amazing but this would also show that it does not take millions of years for the cell to have evolved. I don't see how you can get out of that one.
     
  9. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,206

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    No, it isn't. You picked 5 words out of the middle of a sentence in the middle of my post in order to make it look as though the dilemma is still there. It isn't.

    I'll repeat myself for you:

    The chicken and egg question has an obvious answer - chickens were not the first animals to use eggs, therefore eggs existed before chickens. It's like asking which came first, the car or the wheel? The wheel, obviously, because there were carts and wheelbarrows and suchlike long before there were cars.

    If you're talking specifically about chicken eggs, then the answer is still the egg although it's not a meaningful answer. At some point a not-quite-chicken laid an egg that hatched a just-about-a-chicken, but drawing a line between the two would be a bit arbitrary.

    Billions, actually.

    There's no need to "get out of that one" because it makes no sense. Humans being able to quickly make something that replicates something naturally occuring doesn't prove that it can't occur naturally or that it can only occur naturally as quickly as humans can make it.

    With modern equipment, it would be possible to make a rough limestone pillar in a matter of hours. Do you think that means that naturally occuring limestone pillars formed by a stalagmite and stalactite joining together took only hours to form in caves all over the world?
     
  10. jpod

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 16, 2011

    Posts: 1,620

    Location: Cheshire

    Angilion

    There is a much better response to Kedge's nonsense. Bear in mind his understanding of the theory of evolution falls below a secondary school education standard.

    The majority of Christian leaders & other religious leaders in the 21st century agree evolution is a scientific truth

    If he is Christian. Believes in the bible. Then the simple response is why does Kedge choose not to fall in behind the majority of the Christian and other religious groups in the UK and worldwide who fully accept the scientific truth that evolution by natural selection is proven.

    End of argument.

    Do fossils matter?

    Evolution is fully proven in the 21st century even if there was not a single fossil in existence. We are lucky to have a single fossil never mind countless. It is not the only way to demonstrate evolution - there are countless scientific disciplines.

    I have complained about Kedge because his is purposely posting nonsense which is misleading. I hope other posters do the same.

    Kedge's stance is at odds with the the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, the past leader of the Church of England, Pope John Paul II and Pontiff Benedict XVI who have spoken out in favour of evolution being incorporated into religious people's view of the world.

    Mike drop............
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2019
  11. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,206

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    I think that's another line of argument but not a better one because it's not mandatory for a christian to follow any particular christian leader unless they self-identify as doing so (e.g. catholics are obliged to follow the lead of their pope).

    It's easy for a theist to acknowledge reality within the framework of their faith - they just need to declare that their god(s) created evolution. That's particularly simple with religions that believe in an omniscient and omnipotent deity, since if such a thing existed it would have no problem creating evolution or knowing what would happen billions of years later. So there's no conflict with any creation myths about their god creating humans. The lack of accurate descriptions of this in their creation stories is equally easily explained away - what would be the point in telling bronze age people that? It would either advance their knowledge and technology far faster than they could deal with and ruin them or it would make no sense to them. It would be wiser to give them a greatly simplified version.
     
  12. 4K8KW10

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 4,210

    Evolution exists as long as it means creatures need to adapt to the environment. But evolution doesn't explain human origins, for instance, religion is much closer to the truth.
    We are not fit to live on this planet unless we make it so using clothes and many other "hacks". Skin burn from the Sun radiation will very quickly kill us.
     
  13. jpod

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 16, 2011

    Posts: 1,620

    Location: Cheshire

    Well first of all to quibble with my earlier post is to quibble with the Archbishop of Canterbury a Pope and a Pontiff. Clearly, your opinion is contrary to mainstream Christianity.

    In addition, it is also necessary to have a working understanding of the theory of evolution and the mechanism of natural selection; and have a working understanding of ambiogenesis in order to post anything of value in an evolution thread.

    For instance, did you know evolution does explain human origins. Scientists say modern humans (homo sapiens) are about 150,000 years old. There were precursors of modern man of course.

    Science has very good theories on ambiogenesis - where life came from. That evidence base is building.

    You can read all about it yourself here:
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-...6383796&sr=8-1&keywords=why+evolution+is+true

    And here:
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Greatest-S...383824&sr=1-1&keywords=greatest+show+on+earth

    And here:
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Watc...46383865&sr=1-1&keywords=the+blind+watchmaker

    Please keep your clothes on whilst in the library.
     
  14. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,206

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    OK...so it's much closer to the truth that in the primordial chaos of nothing and everything Pangu was somehow born, slept for 18,000 years, woke up and spent 18,000 years seperating the chaos into the earth and the sky, then died and parasites on his body became the first humans. Obviously much closer to the truth.

    I didn't make that up. It's one of the many different and frequently mutually exclusive religious "explanations" of human origins.

    Evolution explains human origins - we evolved from similar animals, who evolved from similar animals, etc, etc for a few billion years. What it doesn't explain is the origin of life, which has nothing to do with evolution.

    That's not true and the bit of truth in it is down to two things:

    1) Humans moving into environments they did not evolve in, i.e. away from the conditions in eastern Africa in those days. There has been some evolution of traits to better fit some other conditions, e.g. lower amounts of melanin, but the speed of migration vastly exceeded the speed of evolution.

    2) Human evolution includes the tool use that humans are particularly adept at. So selection pressure favoured less body hair because the advantage of the increase the in rate of heat loss when hunting and foraging exceeded the advantage of retaining more heat at night, since humans could use tools to compensate for the lack of thermal insulation from fur.

    Bill Wurtz made an entertaining and accurate video summarising the entire history of Earth from the beginning of the universe, through the formation of Earth and on to the current time in ~20 minutes. I won't link to it because it contains Naughty Magic Words that are banned here, but I do recommend it. In the section on the development of earth, there's a bit about life in the oceans not being able to go on land because the sun is deadly...and then the ozone layer formed so it was safe enough to go on land. Your assertion that Earth is uninhabitable to humans because the sun will very quickly kill a human reminded me of it.
     
  15. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 59,080

    My head isn't really in this right now (stuffed up with a cold) so not sure I can put my thoughts down clearly enough to explain what I'm trying to say but seeing this recently reminded me of one of my problems with evolution (or the version of it that has been pushed the last few decades)

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ic-megalodon-extinction-science-a8679636.html

    Events like that not only result in the potential dying out of whole species it also can drive fundamental, often random rather than adaptive, change in those that survive and can be triggers for sudden changes in the pace or nature of evolution.

    I've had some big problems with the established version of evolution that has been pushed as it has tended to manipulate around these areas, to avoid problems that potentially invalidate it, as they've been anomalous without until recently an explanation - until the recent discovery that there is more than 13,000 previously unknown/unidentified white dwarf stars within 100 parsec of Earth with an estimated Earth effecting supernova every ~2.5 million years.
     
  16. nox_uk

    Hitman

    Joined: Sep 12, 2006

    Posts: 626

    Do we know for sure dinosaurs didn't breathe fire?
     
  17. jpod

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 16, 2011

    Posts: 1,620

    Location: Cheshire

    If scientists believe there were mass extinctions, I think they propose a handful. How does that impact negatively on the theory of evolution?

    Cosmic rays cause the random gene damage which may lead to a survival advantage.

    The branching evolution of species has end branches when organisms like your big shark became extinct. That is the norm.

    Hope you are feeling better soon. Lots of TV, tea in front of the TV, lots of drinks and rest up.
     
  18. 4K8KW10

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 4,210

    Sumer is the first civilisation of modern type humans and they developed only about 6000 years ago.

    Many species (many fish types who just live in flocks, birds too) have no natural selection, humans also don't follow this principle.
     
  19. hornetstinger

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2016

    Posts: 5,437

    We have found buildings older than 6000 years.old

    Natural selection covers fish and birds, humans too.

    Prior to modern medicine, natural section killed off weaker humans

    If I lived 6000 years ago I would not have survived
     
  20. jsmoke

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 17, 2012

    Posts: 6,247

    Due to illness, starvation or being murdered?

    But people have survived so why did some and not others?