DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Evolution... or not.
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 231, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/19/2007 02:14:38 PM · #1
Originally posted by shamer:

so who am I to criticize!


You have the same rights as everyone else to have an opinion. Whethe people listen or not is another question, but it would be a shame not to think about these things for yourself.

Originally posted by shamer:

I'm sure the 'statistical probabilities argument' for both Man and God sound very similar...


Not really. Once life started, given enough time and the conditions that exist on this planet, evolution provides that it is not improbable that advanced life forms like us would develop.

The odds of anything that looks like any traditional god existing are almost infinitely unlikely - and there is no evidence that one does. Indeed, it is hard to believe that something so significant in the history of the universe could be so spectacularly invisible...

Thanks for the links - I'll try and find time to listen.
07/19/2007 12:35:05 PM · #2
Matthew, you make an excellent argument & provide great perspective.

I have to admit that I am surprised that I hear so many arguments against evolution from the more 'devout' members of society. Why do people insist on the talking points being mutually exclusive? I'm not particularly religious myself but whose to say that evolution, quantum physics, et al are not the product of a singular creator? I have a hard time grasping the existence of a God, but I also have a hard time grasping the infinite reaches of the universe as well, so who am I to criticize! I'm sure the 'statistical probabilities argument' for both Man and God sound very similar...

Anyway, there's a great radio show here in the US from WNYC whose podcasts I enjoy quite a bit, "Radio Lab". I got myself caught up on a few missed episodes while on a long drive last week and I think the more scientifically inclined participants in this thread would enjoy them as well. For me, they really put some of the Time|Space|Faith|Man arguments into perspective:

Faith
Space
Immortality
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Rat

Enjoy!
07/19/2007 11:53:13 AM · #3
Originally posted by Delta_6:

Evolution relies on mutations to create new species.

Not just mutations. Also natural variation, cross fertilisation, and other genetic pressures. And many many small changes, not one big change.

Originally posted by Delta_6:

So there would have to be one heck of a lot of "trial and error" to get from pond scum to humans.

4 billion years. 3 billion years of nothing but single celled life ("pond scum"). 1 billion years of more complex life forms of increasing complexity.

Originally posted by Delta_6:

Also, mutations involve a loss of genetic material or information, whereas evolutionary mutations would require a gain of genetic material or information.


Why do you think that mutations only occur where genetic material is missing? It involves a change in genetic material - this could be influenced by a number of natural factors. Natural selection encourages greater sophistication as lifeforms compete for limited resources.

Message edited by author 2007-07-19 11:53:45.
07/19/2007 11:51:27 AM · #4
I didnt read the whole thread...

but for a frightening eye opener, rent JESUSCAMP. Its a scary documentary about the upbringing of kids in the baptist bible belt.
07/19/2007 11:45:12 AM · #5
Originally posted by Sebi:

I gotta disagree with you, he does not say this beetle developed these things one at a time.

He says that in an evolutionary process, things develop one at a time usually, like something starts out small and eventually happens, like the human appendix shriveling up.

He is stating that if the beetle were to have everything come in one at a time, it could have never happened.
he's saying this had to happen all at once.


My point was that he is misrepresenting evolutionary theory in suggesting that it relies solely on gradual, single steps in a single line of development with the ultimate aim of producing the bug we see today.

Evolution is not a strict rule on how things must develop, but an observation that all living things face environmental pressures and those will direct which variants/mutations will best survive. The pool of organisms facing that pressure will gradually exhibit the most favourable variations – ie the species will evolve. It may be the case that the same species in different environments evolves slightly differently, and then could recombine where the pools collide (eg familiar crosses such as mules, asses and zebra/horse - Zorse). Another way might be for certain features to develop as part of a different structure in one environment, then parts of the structure to wither away in another environment, and for remaining parts to develop in combination with that remainder.

It is worth remembering that these pressures are still here and evolution continues around us. For example, over the course of the last few decades, mosquitoes have evolved to fit a new life cycle to reflect the peculiar environmental opportunity and pressures represented in the London Underground.

Originally posted by Sebi:

Personally, I believe evolution is just the ability for something to adapt to it's environment. If it's cold out and you put on a jacket, that's evolution right there. just like a monkey learning to use a stick. I believe it's all the same, just physically changing would take a long time. Like it would probably take a few million years for me to grow gills if I took a 20 hour bath everyday.


That is most emphatically nothing to do with evolution. The whole concept of evolution is that it happens over the course of many generations and in is evident by way of shifts within larger population pools

07/19/2007 12:27:20 AM · #6
Originally posted by Delta_6:

One small point I would like to add, and if it's been said before I apologise.

Evolution relies on mutations to create new species. However, almost all mutations are either detrimental or fatal. So there would have to be one heck of a lot of "trial and error" to get from pond scum to humans. Also, mutations involve a loss of genetic material or information, whereas evolutionary mutations would require a gain of genetic material or information.


There was an awful lot of trial and error so to speak. It took billions of years!
07/19/2007 12:18:43 AM · #7
Steven Wright's Theory of Evolution:

"Darwin was adopted"
07/19/2007 12:11:06 AM · #8
One small point I would like to add, and if it's been said before I apologise.

Evolution relies on mutations to create new species. However, almost all mutations are either detrimental or fatal. So there would have to be one heck of a lot of "trial and error" to get from pond scum to humans. Also, mutations involve a loss of genetic material or information, whereas evolutionary mutations would require a gain of genetic material or information.
07/19/2007 12:00:04 AM · #9
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

the human race will be a a giant blob sack of gooey flesh in no time. Not just obesity, and underexercised, but also because it seems as no one can tolerate any type of pain anymore

all we need is our brain, or maybe, just the mental form of it.
imagine eternal life after your physical form die and rot away.
07/18/2007 11:56:46 PM · #10
This is why I believe (from working in an ED), evolutionarally (that a word?), the human race will be a a giant blob sack of gooey flesh in no time. Not just obesity, and underexercised, but also because it seems as no one can tolerate any type of pain anymore and think it is a RIGHT to be pain free (see lots of "stubbed" toes that seem to think Dilaudid is necessary for pain control).
If you don't have some kind of small pain somewhere, you aren't living. or not living right.
07/18/2007 11:16:17 PM · #11
Originally posted by Matthew:

Your thing was long so i'm erased it and am writing here to show that i am replying to you. I'm weird.


Really cool facts, cool ideas present in the video as well.

I gotta disagree with you, he does not say this beetle developed these things one at a time.

He says that in an evolutionary process, things develop one at a time usually, like something starts out small and eventually happens, like the human appendix shriveling up.

He is stating that if the beetle were to have everything come in one at a time, it could have never happened.
he's saying this had to happen all at once.

For example, if the liquid squirty chamber thingy came in and allowed him to explode before the tube that allows him to aim it came in, the bug would have simply exploded and the species would be wiped out.
thus it all had to happen at the same time in order for it to survive.

Personally, I believe evolution is just the ability for something to adapt to it's environment. If it's cold out and you put on a jacket, that's evolution right there. just like a monkey learning to use a stick. I believe it's all the same, just physically changing would take a long time.

Like it would probably take a few million years for me to grow gills if I took a 20 hour bath everyday.

i'll stop now i'm not making sense anymore.

Oh and here is a cool article

//www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/23/news/thai.php

i'd do more googling but I believe the people there have webbed feet and can hold their breath longer than most.

and the people there learn to swim before they can walk.

I saw it on 20/20. hah.
07/18/2007 11:03:00 PM · #12
I read about this study of some sort of flies that did a little dance to mate. They put them in a dark envornment where they couldn't see and after... I believe only 7 generations their mating patters had changed and there was no longer this "dance" to mate because obviously it wasn't that effective in the dark.

I thought that was a pretty cool study. Kind of proves right there things change and adapt, I see no denying that. I guess people just have a hard time wrapping their brains around little changes like that happening over billions of years until you have humans.

07/18/2007 08:03:53 PM · #13
Originally posted by Sebi:

please watch this:

//youtube.com/watch?v=xAFLIPSSU5M

it's pretty amazing and will pose some tough questions.


As a starter, he makes some basic mistakes in his science eg evidence for first cell was 4bn years ago, not 600m.

His aim is to demonstrate irreducible complexity - the central tenet to intelligent design theory (see my earlier post for an amusing read from Mr Dawkins).

He falls into/leads you into a basic trap by assuming that the bombardier beetle develops structures one at a time and that the end result is in some way the intended result.

It is perfectly plausible that structures developed for one purpose, parts of them became redundant, others were enhanced, then later some combined in a different manner.

There is a video response with one plausible evolutionary sequence of events here.

Remember that we are talking hundreds of billions of beetles, and mutational changes that make the community better or worse at surviving. We know these do happen because we see them happening in insects around us in tens of years. A lot can happen in a few million years - as a comparitor consider that all human civilisation has existed for 10k years during which time, and despite their relatively long lifespans, by exaggerating environments we have used evolutionary pressures to develop all domesticated animals from their very different wild equivalents.

Message edited by author 2007-07-18 20:05:16.
07/18/2007 07:24:10 PM · #14
Originally posted by Sebi:

please watch this:

//youtube.com/watch?v=xAFLIPSSU5M

it's pretty amazing and will pose some tough questions.

07/18/2007 06:58:32 PM · #15
please watch this:

//youtube.com/watch?v=xAFLIPSSU5M

it's pretty amazing and will pose some tough questions.
07/18/2007 06:56:12 PM · #16
Religion is taking the facts (science) of things presented before you and trying add to it and perfect what was previously thought of as being the peak of the particular science. Faith is fiction untill proven otherwise. People must have faith because there are so many possibilities. There is no end to anything.
07/18/2007 06:44:59 PM · #17
So I don't have time to read everything because I'm doing homework and that is what lead me to wanting to post here so I'll make it quick.

I don't think the problem is the holes in the theory. The problem is it is a percieved threat to Christian beliefs...

To this I say look at Galileo (this is my homework, lol, philosophy). Tried as a heretic because of his scientific beliefs.. namely believing the Earth went around the Sun and not the other way around. Ohhh...

Today this is obvious, it's been proven beyond a doubt, so it is no longer a debate to cling to, and it no longer a threat to Christianity because obviously, it is still around. So sad they realized God didn't put the universe around us, and let go of that idea.

So now we are here in 2007 with the internet and a vast amount of knowledge still trying to cling so SOMETHING. SO we think God made us special and put us here in our own special place and evolution screws that whole theory up.

No. The day evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there will STILL BE religion. Perhaps a more evolved, smarter religion, perhaps not. But there will always be some sort of religion, it's human nature...

So. To sum. Lets use a little historical perspective and relax about this whole science ruining religion debate because at the end of it all, as long as there are humans, both will be around.
07/05/2007 03:02:08 PM · #18
And here is an interesting article on some recent thinking on the big bang theory and mathematical models (and proposed experiments) intended to identify if the universe is cyclical.
07/05/2007 02:38:15 PM · #19
In case anyone is interested, here is an amusing demolition by Mr Dawkins of the latest tome on intelligent design by M Behe.
06/24/2007 10:11:21 AM · #20
I've always thought evolution was the survival of the fittest. Mutations are happening daily and the one's that help in survival are generally the ones that survive. Bad mutations that hurt in the survival of a life form die out. The best able to adapt to a given environment continue the chain of evolution. This seems logical to me.

I don't think evolution is kind, I think it is ruthless with no regard to what came before. I'm sure there have been plenty of species that have been wiped out because a newer better copy has mutated into existence.

The humans have arrived, we've been mutated into existence. Now what do we do? Do we totally take over, like we are well on our way of doing. Do we stop evolution in it's tracks, anything mutated better then us will be looked at as an aberration. I have a feeling that what we are used to is what we'll accept, any change from the norm will be looked at as deviant.

What do you think?

Message edited by author 2007-06-24 10:35:21.
06/23/2007 01:51:43 PM · #21
Someone once described the difference between belief and faith to me.

It went like this:

Belief is going to the circus and watching tight rope walker push a wheelbarrow across the wire. You believe he can do it.

Faith is getting into the wheelbarrow while he pushes it across the wire.

:-D

Message edited by author 2007-06-23 13:55:27.
06/23/2007 12:10:36 PM · #22
Originally posted by fireserpent:

I would have to disagree with you on one point. Faith is rational argument. You buy a car with seat belts and air bags because you have faith that in the event of an accident they will maximize your chances for surviving a collision. That faith is not based on a dream or a fictional bed time story you were told as a child. You don't believe those things because you simply want to believe them to be true. You have faith because there is history, facts, proofs and tests. Faith is buckling your seatbelt because you've seen that crash test dummy commercial by Volvo.


You're describing knowledge, not faith; you KNOW these things because they've been "proven". Faith, by definition, is belief in the absence of proof.

R.
06/23/2007 11:05:29 AM · #23
Originally posted by fireserpent:

Scientifically speaking... The "big bang" theory points to there having been a creator.


It most certainly does not - it is something that is unknown. A "god" is only one explanation and I would submit that any contemporary god would be a pretty far fetched explanation.

Originally posted by big-bang-theory.org:

What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics."


Originally posted by fireserpent:

Basically it says that before, there was nothing.


Again - it most certainly does not (I posted the relevant bit). It says that what it is and what was there before are unknown. Going beyond what is stated in the quote you provided, it may be a nonsense to talk about "before" the big bang as time as we understand it may be a facet of physics that only exists within the universe as a consequence of the big bang. Similarly, there may be nothing "outside" the universe as dimensional space that exists within and defines our universe.

However, this is all very hard or perhaps impossible to conceive - as I understand it, it only really starts to make sense in some types of esoteric maths. Much easier to just say "creator" and be done with it. Especially if you have a significant socio-political investment in that concept...

Originally posted by fireserpent:

The christian Bible offers one explanation... "In the beginning GOD..."


If you are going to believe one story over all others, it would be a shame to choose the christian one - there are so many other far more inventive stories...

Originally posted by fireserpent:

I.D. doesn't seek to explain that there is a god or anything of that sort... it simply states that something or someone caused the eventual effects and those effects and the cause had a purpose and an order. Even the most ignorant man of science can see that there is an order to things occuring in the universe... even if he can not explain them.


I think that ID goes far further than you suggest - it seeks to deny that our evolution could have occurred naturally. In fact, the odds are almost infinitely in favour of evolution over creation (per my earlier post).

I don't know what kind of order you are talking about. I see laws of physics applying in a consistent fashion - ie, not being interfered with by some supernatural creator force. Is that the kind of order you mean?
06/22/2007 07:37:32 PM · #24
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:

Originally posted by Matthew:

“what made god?” – which religions usually try and deal with by saying something obviously dissembling like “don’t question his nature” or “we are not meant to understand” because there is no answer.


To submit a slightly cheeky answer from alterna-land: evolution.

I'm trying to stay out of these science vs. Christianity discussions, though, so that's all I've got right now.


Scientifically speaking... The "big bang" theory points to there having been a creator.

"The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics."

The above was taken from big-bang-theory.org. Basically it says that before, there was nothing. Then, there was something (and a lot of it). Science seeks to explain that which occured during and after the big bang. Strangly enough they have yet to offer an explaintion for the imbalance of cause and effect. They point to it as an uncaused effect and are happy to leave it at that even though it distorts a law of physics (every action has an equal and opposite reaction). The christian Bible offers one explanation... "In the beginning GOD..."

I.D. doesn't seek to explain that there is a god or anything of that sort... it simply states that something or someone caused the eventual effects and those effects and the cause had a purpose and an order. Even the most ignorant man of science can see that there is an order to things occuring in the universe... even if he can not explain them.
06/22/2007 12:43:07 AM · #25
Originally posted by Matthew:

“what made god?” – which religions usually try and deal with by saying something obviously dissembling like “don’t question his nature” or “we are not meant to understand” because there is no answer.


To submit a slightly cheeky answer from alterna-land: evolution.

I'm trying to stay out of these science vs. Christianity discussions, though, so that's all I've got right now.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/29/2020 01:33:19 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/29/2020 01:33:19 PM EDT.