Evolution Jeopardy

[speedz99 145]

Ok, I'm tired, and have to continue studying developmental anatomy (you'd be amazed at how cool it was of god to create similar systems of development between species) and physiological chemistry (he sure designed some crazy metabolic pathways). In the end, all that matters is that you obviously need to learn a lot more about the theory of evolution if you are going to try to pretend that your disbelief in it is based on anything but simplistic superstition. And my 0.0001% is very, very generous. You're welcome.It's been real.

[Balloon guy 158]

A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste

[vbnautilus 48]

I'm not saying evolutionist are closing their eyes and sticking their heads in the sand, I'm just pointing out that your whole theory has been one wrong conclusion after another and you guys all act like it's infallible. Sorry, but Peking man Neandrathal, Java, the Coelacanth, and Richard dawkins all point to failed attempts at proving what you already want to believe.

But none of those things are inconsistent with evolution. There is currently zero evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution (which by the way, was based on observations of the unique adaptations of geographically isolated populations of related creatures). And you can make fun of science for making mistakes all you want. We embrace our fallibility and admit that we make mistakes all the time. It's part of the process of learning. The alternative, to convince yourself that you can't possibly be wrong, is always the end of the road for learning.

Didn't know we stopped eating salads and that mostly useless is exactly the same as completely useless. You should be proud that science once thought that the appendix was completely useless, but has since accepted that they were wrong, just like the other 180+ things they accused of being useless.

The point is that it lost its original function. Whether it is now used for something else is an interesting question.

I guess natural selection isn't the efficiant method you guys get away with proclaiming? Apparently it is truely random in it's willy nilly method of adding and subtracting entire organs, appendages and shapes of life forms.

It's not perfect, like your perfect creator would have created. It is opportunistic, and does create things from hobbling together older things; as environments change, things come and go, and we make use of what we have. To me the stranger hypothesis is that life doesn't change over time. I mean, we know from artificial selection (selective breeding) that if we favor a subset of the animals that have a certain trait, that trait gets more frequent. That's how we get fast race horses and cows that give lots of milk. How is it possible that the environment does not also favor certain individuals, thus making those traits more frequent? Or do you acknowledge that life must change over time, just not "that much"?

[Balloon guy 158]

But none of those things are inconsistent with evolution.

I didn't say they were, only that there is a track record of believing first, then finding out the truth later.I know my side does this as well, but you are now trying to place science on a pedastal of perfection and openmindedness and I am only pointing out that the track record of science is as spotty if not more, than of Christianity's claim on morality ( which it still does hold quite well ).

There is currently zero evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution (which by the way, was based on observations of the unique adaptations of geographically isolated populations of related creatures).

That statement is a perfect example of my point.Do you really mean to say that everything we know about now, we know fully and therefore all of our conclusions about these things are flawless? Science has been sure of many things in the past, including the above stated 'errors'. Always patting itself on the back for being explorers who are just seeking truth. To pretend that conclusions science has made over and over again about every field of study haven't been filled with self righteous declarations of our correctness..only to be brought down the next day by a 'new' discovery is to close your eyes to the truth of the scientific method ( invented by a Christian scientist)

And you can make fun of science for making mitsaks all you want. We embrace our fallibility and admit that we make mitsaks all the time. It's part of the process of learning. The alternative, to convince yourself that you can't possibly be wrong, is always the end of the road for learning.

Puhlease..let's not pretend that science is a person like David Carradine in Kung Fu, quite spoken and reflective. Science is filled with people, and as such it has the same problems as the church does, using the organization for personal gain, directing a way of thought for an agenda, and asking for money all the time.And to quote a certain scientist: A little science enstranges man from God, but much science leads them back again

The point is that it lost its original function. Whether it is now used for something else is an interesting question.

So you now hold that man also devolves along with evolves? Now you are starting to agree with me. I hold that man is becoming weaker as a creature. We have devolved from perfection to our current state of disease ridden self destructive selfish beasts.

It's not perfect, like your perfect creator would have created. It is opportunistic, and does create things from hobbling together older things; as environments change, things come and go, and we make use of what we have.

Again, looking at things with a conviction that evolution is absolutely true is really the only way you can see these things this way. The rest of us are asking things like evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould:"But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2% of a wing.."

To me the stranger hypothesis is that life doesn't change over time. I mean, we know from artificial selection (selective breeding) that if we favor a subset of the animals that have a certain trait, that trait gets more frequent. That's how we get fast race horses and cows that give lots of milk. How is it possible that the environment does not also favor certain individuals, thus making those traits more frequent? Or do you acknowledge that life must change over time, just not "that much"?

Because horses and cows are being directed by an outside intelligence, and only when there is a purpose do things like that happen?Or when there is lots and lots of time?Only when those two possible conditions exist is there purposeful direction to make changes that result in such focused results.I am 50% sure about this.

[vbnautilus 48]

Do you really mean to say that everything we know about now, we know fully and therefore all of our conclusions about these things are flawless?

no.

Science has been sure of many things in the past, including the above stated 'errors'. Always patting itself on the back for being explorers who are just seeking truth. To pretend that conclusions science has made over and over again about every field of study haven't been filled with self righteous declarations of our correctness..only to be brought down the next day by a 'new' discovery is to close your eyes to the truth of the scientific method ( invented by a Christian scientist)

Science does have a lot of things to pat itself on the back about. (e.g.how we are having this conversation across hundreds of miles). You want to reap the benefits and then trash the process that gave them to you when it suits your needs. I think you should just go Amish and reject science all together rather than picking and choosing which things you want to keep based on whether or not they correspond to a book written in a language you don't speak. The tendency of some people to be overconfident in their conclusions does not invalidate the method, which proceeds forward despite this human flaw.

Puhlease..let's not pretend that science is a person like David Carradine in Kung Fu, quite spoken and reflective. Science is filled with people, and as such it has the same problems as the church does, using the organization for personal gain, directing a way of thought for an agenda, and asking for money all the time.

Agreed, which is why any system for truth-finding needs to have built-in mechanisms to counter-act the human biases and motivations we all have. In science, if some guy is being an asshat about his theory, all you gotta do is present convincing evidence that he is wrong to make him eat crow. Or at least to convince everyone else he is wrong. With religion, there is no such process.

So you now hold that man also devolves along with evolves? Now you are starting to agree with me. I hold that man is becoming weaker as a creature. We have devolved from perfection to our current state of disease ridden self destructive selfish beasts.

Evolution is change to accomodate a changing evironment. If animals grow fur because it is cold, then the climate gets warmer, they change again to lose the fur. "Perfect" means fitting into your mental concept of the ways things should be? You slap mother nature in the face when you decide that her disease-ridden, self-destructive, selfish, compassionately brilliant beasts are not perfect.

Again, looking at things with a conviction that evolution is absolutely true is really the only way you can see these things this way. The rest of us are asking things like evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould:"But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2% of a wing.."

This is one of the most insidiously awful and oft-repeated anti-evolution arguments there are. I mean its just really really bad and borders on disingenuous. I am going to take the time to formulate a full post on just this one, so that we can put it to rest once and for all and simultaneously appreciate its badness in full. I also need some time to thinking of a derogatory nickname for SJG.

Because horses and cows are being directed by an outside intelligence, and only when there is a purpose do things like that happen?

Why? All you would need is for something to favor the reproduction of faster horses, right? So for example if horses are chased by a predator that catches the slow ones and kills them, how would that produce a different result from me finding the fast ones and breeding them?

[Balloon guy 158]

Science does have a lot of things to pat itself on the back about. (e.g.how we are having this conversation across hundreds of miles). You want to reap the benefits and then trash the process that gave them to you when it suits your needs. I think you should just go Amish and reject science all together rather than picking and choosing which things you want to keep based on whether or not they correspond to a book written in a language you don't speak.

Don't go hating on the Amish, they are an admirable people.

The tendency of some people to be overconfident in their conclusions does not invalidate the method, which proceeds forward despite this human flaw.

Of course...so let's not be quite so free with your praise of science being truth seekers with no motives.

Agreed, which is why any system for truth-finding needs to have built-in mechanisms to counter-act the human biases and motivations we all have. In science, if some guy is being an asshat about his theory, all you gotta do is present convincing evidence that he is wrong to make him eat crow. Or at least to convince everyone else he is wrong. With religion, there is no such process.

Religion isn't re-inventing itself everytime a savant finds some new chalk.

Evolution is change to accomodate a changing evironment. If animals grow fur because it is cold, then the climate gets warmer, they change again to lose the fur. "Perfect" means fitting into your mental concept of the ways things should be? You slap mother nature in the face when you decide that her disease-ridden, self-destructive, selfish, compassionately brilliant beasts are not perfect.

sometimes you got to keep her down so she don't get uppidityYES UPPIDITY

This is one of the most insidiously awful and oft-repeated anti-evolution arguments there are. I mean its just really really bad and borders on disingenuous. I am going to take the time to formulate a full post on just this one, so that we can put it to rest once and for all and simultaneously appreciate its badness in full. I also need some time to thinking of a derogatory nickname for SJG.

Haha..I already have Little Dickie Dawkins so you can't use that one.And btw Gould is on your side...don't go acting like he's one of ours.

Why? All you would need is for something to favor the reproduction of faster horses, right? So for example if horses are chased by a predator that catches the slow ones and kills them, how would that produce a different result from me finding the fast ones and breeding them?

Again..I take issue with the simplistic answers that you are using to somehow pretend that you are making the case for evolution. By your example the slower predators will starve and only faster ones will continue ( which should go back to my 'missed' answer about the best trait ) so the horses that are faster gain nothing, and we shouldn't be looking at micro-evolution to try to pretend that it explains how a fish with half legs and half fins learned to walk even though it couldn't swim or walk. Random mutations as the catalyst for species changes are a joke based on blind faith, trying to point to husbandry as an example of the scientific method that proves evolution is nothing but a blind faith in a poorly thought out conclusion that isn't helping your side much.I think my score should go to prove that we are beyond this simplistic approach ( I will fix this when my score goes above zero )Also I am expecting fireworks now after that last sentance

[vbnautilus 48]

Haha..I already have Little Dickie Dawkins so you can't use that one.And btw Gould is on your side...don't go acting like he's one of ours.

I have plenty to argue with SJG about. He did not even think that religion and science are in conflict. If that's true that when do you call this thread, GOULDIE - GOULDEN'S GOLDEN BROWN MUSTARD - STEPHEN LAME GOULD -- I give up.

Again..I take issue with the simplistic answers that you are using to somehow pretend that you are making the case for evolution.

I was really just wondering what the plausible alternative is. How could animal features possibly remain static in when the environment changes? If the climate gets colder, wouldn't you expect the bears with thicker hair to survive and thus subsequent generations of bears would be hairier? In other words, you are making this (false) distinction between so-called micro-evolution and macroevolution. But are you conceding micro-evolution and only arguing against macro-evolution? Or do you have some way of explaining why these changes over generations would not happen?

By your example the slower predators will starve and only faster ones will continue so the horses that are faster gain nothing

Competition makes both sides better, isn't that what republicans always say?

trying to point to husbandry as an example of the scientific method that proves evolution is nothing but a blind faith in a poorly thought out conclusion that isn't helping your side much.

Now this is a low blow. I don't see why you had to bring my marriage into this.

[Balloon guy 158]

I have plenty to argue with SJG about. He did not even think that religion and science are in conflict.

So did a few other scientist..but let's leave it at most of the smart ones...

If that's true that when do you call this thread, GOULDIE - GOULDEN'S GOLDEN BROWN MUSTARD - STEPHEN LAME GOULD -- I give up.

Given enough time, I'm sure you'll think of something.You guys always do...

I was really just wondering what the plausible alternative is. How could animal features possibly remain static in when the environment changes? If the climate gets colder, wouldn't you expect the bears with thicker hair to survive and thus subsequent generations of bears would be hairier?

Not in conflict with creation to say that inner species adaptation is normal.

In other words, you are making this (false) distinction between so-called micro-evolution and macroevolution. But are you conceding micro-evolution and only arguing against macro-evolution? Or do you have some way of explaining why these changes over generations would not happen?

Yes, I am conceeding micro-evolution. A bird can become a different bird, it just can't become a walrus 'given enough time'

Competition makes both sides better, isn't that what republicans always say?

Only smart ones...like Rush

Now this is a low blow. I don't see why you had to bring my marriage into this.

Just showing you how our two wives were obviously not attracted to the best and the brightest choices...which dooms the theory of evolutionary advanacements for the current generation at least.

[speedz99 145]

Yes, I am conceeding micro-evolution. A bird can become a different bird, it just can't become a walrus 'given enough time'

You have a population of medium sized furry animals. They do quite well for themselves, and therefore the population spreads across a large distance. Now half of the population is still in the northern area of the region, while the other half is closer to the south. A particularly hard winter hits, and the ones further south just keep heading down in that direction to stay away from the cold, while the ones still in the north have to just stay there and deal with it, because trying to travel would be certain death. Come spring, you have two geographically distinct populations. The ones up north continue their "micro-evolution", including getting bigger, hairier, etc. The ones down south continue their "micro-evolution", which includes getting less hairy (don't want to overheat), leaner (the available prey is harder to catch), etc. Now continue "micro-evolution" for millions of years.The northern animal has continued to grow and developed an affinity (re: ability to properly digest) for nuts, berries, etc. The southern animal has evolved in a way that allows it to survive well in its own environment...it's a lot smaller, since the big ones just couldn't get enough food to survive, and has evolved into a shape that is best for catching its favorite prey. The smaller animal is now doing so well that it spreads all over the place, even back up to where its ancestor came from. But they are now so different than the northern animal that they couldn't even mate if they wanted to. Shazaam, different species altogether!Of course I made this up, so there are plenty of holes in the story you could point out, but this stuff happens...it's really not an uncommon scenario. Will either species eventually turn into a walrus? Probably not. But it's not a linear thing...there are so many branches involved that it's never "you had a mammal, one in the population had a crazy mutation that resulted in it having gills, and then there was a new species of fish". Realistically, a "macro evolution" split involves a common ancestor's common ancestor's common ancestor, and within each common ancestor there's millions and millions of years of "micro evolution". You can't have one without the other. You can't have one without the other. They are the same thing. They are the same thing.Yeah, it's on a massive scale and it's not something that is easily accessible. But it's even less massive than most people give it credit for. Right now I'm learning about how the body works on a chemical level. There are trillions of moving parts in our bodies, and they all work together to keep us going. Within every one of our organs there is a multitude of chemical reactions and pathways, all intertwined, any of which can kill us if something goes wrong. Getting from the first complex forms of life to a bear and a walrus over billions of years is nothing, man. That's the easy part. The way our bodies metabolize glucose...that's fucking intense.

[vbnautilus 48]

Just showing you how our two wives were obviously not attracted to the best and the brightest choices...which dooms the theory of evolutionary advanacements for the current generation at least.

Well yours is obviously just a gold-digger. Mine, there's no explanation.

[Balloon guy 158]

You have a population of medium sized furry animals. They do quite well for themselves, and therefore the population spreads across a large distance. Now half of the population is still in the northern area of the region, while the other half is closer to the south. A particularly hard winter hits, and the ones further south just keep heading down in that direction to stay away from the cold, while the ones still in the north have to just stay there and deal with it, because trying to travel would be certain death. Come spring, you have two geographically distinct populations. The ones up north continue their "micro-evolution", including getting bigger, hairier, etc. The ones down south continue their "micro-evolution", which includes getting less hairy (don't want to overheat), leaner (the available prey is harder to catch), etc. Now continue "micro-evolution" for millions of years.The northern animal has continued to grow and developed an affinity (re: ability to properly digest) for nuts, berries, etc. The southern animal has evolved in a way that allows it to survive well in its own environment...it's a lot smaller, since the big ones just couldn't get enough food to survive, and has evolved into a shape that is best for catching its favorite prey. The smaller animal is now doing so well that it spreads all over the place, even back up to where its ancestor came from. But they are now so different than the northern animal that they couldn't even mate if they wanted to. Shazaam, different species altogether!

Of course I made this up, so there are plenty of holes in the story you could point out, but this stuff happens...it's really not an uncommon scenario. Will either species eventually turn into a walrus? Probably not. But it's not a linear thing...there are so many branches involved that it's never "you had a mammal, one in the population had a crazy mutation that resulted in it having gills, and then there was a new species of fish". Realistically, a "macro evolution" split involves a common ancestor's common ancestor's common ancestor, and within each common ancestor there's millions and millions of years of "micro evolution". You can't have one without the other. You can't have one without the other. They are the same thing. They are the same thing.

Of course you can. Of course you can. The idea that all living things are able to adapt to a changing environment isn't only possible in a world where all living things are able to change to a different species. And in this world you believe in, shouldn't there be some species in transition? Some half winged bird, or receeding armed lizard etc? Or is everything done changing? We are deep into the evolution cycles of every single living thing..yet none of them are in a process of metamorphosis that would be expected by anyone claiming to hold this truth.

Yeah, it's on a massive scale and it's not something that is easily accessible. But it's even less massive than most people give it credit for. Right now I'm learning about how the body works on a chemical level. There are trillions of moving parts in our bodies, and they all work together to keep us going. Within every one of our organs there is a multitude of chemical reactions and pathways, all intertwined, any of which can kill us if something goes wrong. Getting from the first complex forms of life to a bear and a walrus over billions of years is nothing, man. That's the easy part. The way our bodies metabolize glucose...that's fing intense.

You are saying you see this intensly complex, amazingly difficult process such as metabolizing glucose and you say..wow that's really amazing that it happened on it's own by chance, but if I simplify some of the process I can allow myself to believe that in the thousands of random mutations, that happen every few decades, the occasional good one was enhanced through natural selection etc and eventually these complex things are a reality.I see them and say..not likely that such a focused complex result could happen by a process that claims not only random mutation as it's springboard, but no purpose or direction before the result.This is also the reason many scientist come over to the Creation side, the more complex we see the universe around us, the less merit we give to the notion that this all happened by chance and a bunch of hope.Hope and change only works in the political realm, not the scientific one.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well yours is obviously just a gold-digger. Mine, there's no explanation.

Without her...I'm still on the back of a dozer pushing dirt pretending I'm cool.

[vbnautilus 48]

Of course you can. Of course you can. The idea that all living things are able to adapt to a changing environment isn't only possible in a world where all living things are able to change to a different species.

I think you put too much weight on this whole species concept. Species is not always such a bright line. There are many groups of animals that have similar features but have been reproductively isolated from each other and now have differences -- but its not clear if they should be regarded as separate species. Species is a taxonomic tool we have for categorizing animals; it is not some magical biological difference between them.

And in this world you believe in, shouldn't there be some species in transition?

As long as environments are changing, there is transition over time. But transition is a slow process over time.

Some half winged bird, or receeding armed lizard etc?

Or is everything done changing? We are deep into the evolution cycles of every single living thing..yet none of them are in a process of metamorphosis that would be expected by anyone claiming to hold this truth.

Evolutionary change is slow. You don't see it within one lifetime, you see it over thousands of generations. Where you are mistaken is that you postulate intermediate forms which are not useful but on their way to useful forms. That is not how it works. What we have in reality is a succession of ever more useful forms. Your argument that this couldn't happen because you cannot imagine the pathway from winglessness to winged in which each point along the way is a slightly more useful form is not very strong. The "failure of imagination" argument never really holds any water, but is also easily refuted by someone with a better imagination.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

[Balloon guy 158]

Although this is fun...I have to pack for a little trip. So maybe if we quit arguing we get another question before I leave.If not, then let me leave you with this.

[Balloon guy 158]

Curious which way they are evolving do you think? Getting new legs and wings, or shedding them?

[vbnautilus 48]

Curious which way they are evolving do you think? Getting new legs and wings, or shedding them?

Shedding them.

[vbnautilus 48]

Although this is fun...I have to pack for a little trip. So maybe if we quit arguing we get another question before I leave.If not, then let me leave you with this.

I would definitely choose a beer over that bunch.

[Balloon guy 158]

I would definitely choose a beer over that bunch.

Which proves my contention that evolution is a jopke.Since most male species would agree with your answer, it goes to show that the evolution of our species will never be able to continue since those fine women of breeding age will bear many good children...but you would rather get drunk in in your debaucheous state, burn brain cells instead of procreating for the furtherance of the species... thus proving that Darwinian evolution doesn't work.Check and mate.Hahahah...it was almost too easy

[Alex_Trebek 0]

Terminology: 400The structures in the picture are all derived from a common ancestral structure, even though they have somewhat different functions now. This is the term for such structures.

[Balloon guy 158]

Terminology: 400The structures in the picture are all derived from a common ancestral structure, even though they have somewhat different functions now. This is the term for such structures.

hmm, I am going to think aobut this one while in Maui.I'll be back in 10 days.

[vbnautilus 48]

hmm, I am going to think aobut this one while in Maui.I'll be back in 10 days.

going to collect data on evolution I assume. have a good trip!

[JoeyJoJo 18]

http://www.biologycorner.com/resources/homobones.jpgThe structures in the picture are all derived from a common ancestral structure, even though they have somewhat different functions now. This is the term for such structures.

I don't know the answer, but it should be "homobones."

[speedz99 145]

Of course you can. Of course you can. The idea that all living things are able to adapt to a changing environment isn't only possible in a world where all living things are able to change to a different species. And in this world you believe in, shouldn't there be some species in transition? Some half winged bird, or receeding armed lizard etc? Or is everything done changing? We are deep into the evolution cycles of every single living thing..yet none of them are in a process of metamorphosis that would be expected by anyone claiming to hold this truth.

Heh. Yeah. And now think of how many examples there are that aren't so blatantly obvious.

You are saying you see this intensly complex, amazingly difficult process such as metabolizing glucose and you say..wow that's really amazing that it happened on it's own by chance, but if I simplify some of the process I can allow myself to believe that in the thousands of random mutations, that happen every few decades, the occasional good one was enhanced through natural selection etc and eventually these complex things are a reality.I see them and say..not likely that such a focused complex result could happen by a process that claims not only random mutation as it's springboard, but no purpose or direction before the result.This is also the reason many scientist come over to the Creation side, the more complex we see the universe around us, the less merit we give to the notion that this all happened by chance and a bunch hope.

This boils down to "I don't understand it, therefore it must be magic". I reject that hypothesis. God of the Gaps, etc.