The theory (fact) of evolution

vincent1989 said:
all the, now debunked, scientific 'facts' people used to believe in that have since been disproved were taught and theorised by the most eminent minds of the time and yet we now believe them to be wrong.

any scientist who approaches you with a 'scientific fact' is a charlatan and should be espoused as such.
Click to expand...

You don't appreciate the amount of evidence that points towards the truth of evolution, and that's why you won't accept that is it fact. Read the book I mentioned above, no in fact - Watch this amazing lecture

http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet?blend=1&ob=4#p/a/u/0/w1m4mATYoig

How can anyone argue with that?
 
AcidHell2 said:
Sorry take that as pairs, so say 4 pairs to 5 pairs.

Or is this Polyploidy things just duplication of the same data?
Click to expand...

mainly duplication of the same data iirc :p

But have a read of that e.coli link i posted.

Don't think it's full chromosomes but it is new genes and makes it quite different to all other e.coli.
 
Tombstone said:
That would be an interesting one for theories over..what existed before God popped into existence and who/what created God?
Click to expand...

Only works if God follows the rules though. If God doesn't follow the rules he can do what he likes.

*Moangroan* said:
How old is the theory of evolution.....200 years ??? This is not long enough to see if anykind of evolution takes place let alone use this as a base to prove or disprove some academic guesswork.
Click to expand...

Easy then. Disprove it. That is what science is all about after all. Come up with something that fits the evidence better.


*Moangroan* said:
I really believe its just as it title sugest a ''theory' and as we all know a theory is just the posh term for 'idea'.
Click to expand...

Then you don't really understand the scientific use of the word theory. It is a scientific theory that allows you to post on the internet after all.
 
Tefal said:
Don't think it's full chromosomes but it is new genes and makes it quite different to all other e.coli.
Click to expand...

I understand that and as I said I bet the theorys is basically sound. But I think people get caught up in "we have seen and repeatable tests of evolution". When in reality it is only parts of evolution we have tested.

A bit like general relativity and quantum mechanics. Just because it works on one scale, doesn't automatically mean it works on all scales. Well not until we have observed it.
 
Last edited:
RDM said:
I would have thought it would be the other way around. As evolution is a bit of chance mixed in with some natural selection based on that chance if it works, it works. However a designer would have to purposefully design it in a half arsed way. Is the current method of childbirth also the best a designer could come up with? If we are designed then said designer really needs to have another go.
Click to expand...

but why would any creature evolve into something that sees the world upside down? in my mind i can see no benefits. unless of course a creature spontaneously evolved both at the same time, but then why would evolution do that, it's not some gestalt conciousness that can know of it's previous failings and see that having a brain that flips an image and upside-down retina are independently ineffective.

live bearing is a brilliant form of 'birth' and the way in which birthing happens is (in average circumstances) a reliable method, certainly more reliable than having to keep a clutch of eggs warm for months on end hoping that in the periods of time you yourself go away to feed that some predator wont chance it and kill the off spring you've expended massive amount of energy and resources in producing.
 
Apachegunface said:
You don't appreciate the amount of evidence that points towards the truth of evolution, and that's why you won't accept that is it fact. Read the book I mentioned above, no in fact - Watch this amazing lecture

http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet?blend=1&ob=4#p/a/u/0/w1m4mATYoig

How can anyone argue with that?
Click to expand...

the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe (which now seems preposterous to us) was widely believed by the western world and probably taught in the same manner as you preach evolution (he's a genius, how can he be wrong, all the facts point to etc), you're just as bad as fundamental religionists.
 
vincent1989 said:
but why would any creature evolve into something that sees the world upside down? in my mind i can see no benefits. unless of course a creature spontaneously evolved both at the same time, but then why would evolution do that, it's not some gestalt conciousness that can know of it's previous failings and see that having a brain that flips an image and upside-down retina are independently ineffective.
Click to expand...

Because **** happens? Maybe the mutation or series of mutations came along with some benefits that outweighed the fact that you now see the world upside down and the brain needs to compensate? How come you are offering no explanation as to why a designer would create it in such a fashion and why that is more logical?

vincent1989 said:
live bearing is a brilliant form of 'birth' and the way in which birthing happens is (in average circumstances) a reliable method, certainly more reliable than having to keep a clutch of eggs warm for months on end hoping that in the periods of time you yourself go away to feed that some predator wont chance it and kill the off spring you've expended massive amount of energy and resources in producing.
Click to expand...

Yes, live bearing is better than the other methods, it still isn't brilliant though is it? The opening is smaller than what has to come out so you either get stretching or tearing. It fails completely an awful lot of the time leading to miscarriage in about 1/4 to 1/3 of all pregnancies. It can have a huge number of negative impacts on the parent including death. For something "designed" it is pretty poor.
 
Tefal said:
we have seen plants with 2 sets of chromosomes increase to 3 (the edible banana iirc) but they're usually infertile because they need pairs to actually replicate.

They can't reproduce without pairs.

But aside from changes in the size of the fruits etc i don't think there are ever that many changes.
Click to expand...

+1

its called triploidy. it where a diploid gamete fused with a haploid gamete and a triploid zygote forms. Bananas, Watermelons, Apples...Polyploidy is pervasive in the plant kingdom.

here is a better explanation than wiki.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Polyploidy-1552814
 
Could be two arguments here that need to be identified. It's one thing for an evolution/adaptation of a pre-existing set of complex working genetics but quite another to go from nothing to that complex set of working genetics. The former being believable and identifiable by science.

But the infinite complexity of the latter, the sheer mind boggling number of failed rolls of the dice that would go into even a minor evolution of a genetic sequence before the change was successful (and ignoring how it all started) is a dizzying thought.

And the very existence of us based on an evolutionary theory by definition sets us in a universe of infinite possibilities. I feel based on this its best to keep an open mind on what we accept as fact as what we 'think' we do know is infinitely out weighed by what we certainly don't know. :D
 
vincent1989 said:
live bearing is a brilliant form of 'birth' and the way in which birthing happens is (in average circumstances) a reliable method, certainly more reliable than having to keep a clutch of eggs warm for months on end hoping that in the periods of time you yourself go away to feed that some predator wont chance it and kill the off spring you've expended massive amount of energy and resources in producing.
Click to expand...

An even better way would be that the feotus is kept in a small pod upon the body and the pod detaches after 24 hours and the newborn is inside ready to come out.

Thats the way I would do it. :)
 
vincent1989 said:
but why would any creature evolve into something that sees the world upside down? in my mind i can see no benefits. unless of course a creature spontaneously evolved both at the same time, but then why would evolution do that, it's not some gestalt conciousness that can know of it's previous failings and see that having a brain that flips an image and upside-down retina are independently ineffective.

live bearing is a brilliant form of 'birth' and the way in which birthing happens is (in average circumstances) a reliable method, certainly more reliable than having to keep a clutch of eggs warm for months on end hoping that in the periods of time you yourself go away to feed that some predator wont chance it and kill the off spring you've expended massive amount of energy and resources in producing.
Click to expand...

But you're not appreciating how evolution works. It wouldnt have seen the world upside down when the retina first started to appear in the eyes of a species, it would have a lot less of a role to play. The early eye before it gradually changed into the complex thing we see and use now would be very primative. It would be used to detect light, or shadows and therefore the eye gave a species an advantage when being hunted. You must understand that evolution equal gradual change, the change doesnt have to be much, it just has to be a small, tiny improvement.
 
RDM said:
Because **** happens? Maybe the mutation or series of mutations came along with some benefits that outweighed the fact that you now see the world upside down and the brain needs to compensate? How come you are offering no explanation as to why a designer would create it in such a fashion and why that is more logical?
Click to expand...

perhaps because the designer knew it would come with some hidden benefits we don't understand?



RDM said:
Yes, live bearing is better than the other methods, it still isn't brilliant though is it? The opening is smaller than what has to come out so you either get stretching or tearing. It fails completely an awful lot of the time leading to miscarriage in about 1/4 to 1/3 of all pregnancies. It can have a huge number of negative impacts on the parent including death. For something "designed" it is pretty poor.
Click to expand...

and why have we not evolved something better if it is so bad?
 
Apachegunface said:
our retina is actually upside down, why would a designer do this.
Click to expand...

are you being serious. Because it is a simple solution. Who cares what the retina sees, it is easier to translate that image with software (brain). Than make the eye hugely more complicated. What does seeing the world the right way up on the retina achieve. Sod all, and makes things hugely more complicated.

what a silly argument.
 
vincent1989 said:
perhaps because the designer knew it would come with some hidden benefits we don't understand?
Click to expand...

I was hoping for a little bit better than "God moves in mysterious ways".


vincent1989 said:
and why have we not evolved something better if it is so bad?
Click to expand...

Give it time, with evolution we are, after all, a work in progress. If we are designed then we are a **** poor design decision.
 
vincent1989 said:
the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe (which now seems preposterous to us) was widely believed by the western world and probably taught in the same manner as you preach evolution (he's a genius, how can he be wrong, all the facts point to etc), you're just as bad as fundamental religionists.
Click to expand...

Those primitive ideas werent based on evidence though were they? Just man made explanations to satisfy the annoying need we humans have of having to know all the answers. Fundamentalists believe in something that has no prove or evidence, scientists dont 'believe' they make observations given the 'evidence' and by using the scientific method of disproving things by contradictory evidence.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Sorry take that as pairs, so say 4 pairs to 5 pairs.

Or is this Polyploidy things just duplication of the same data?
Click to expand...


101038_nrg1711-f1_full.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom