Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread

[Stilgar]

Adaption is everywhere. If someone spots an evolved person, with a different skeleton and brain, give me a call.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

K, nobody is so dumb as to deny micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is what's bogus.

If you believe in micro-evolution, don't you think it's possible to have macro-evolution? The only difference is the time span involved. It seems to me if it's possible to evolve in a short timeframe, it should be possible to evolve in a long timeframe. In fact, it seems like it would be more difficult to evolve in a short timeframe, making micro-evolution more difficult than macro-evolution.

I brought up horse evolution before because there is a nice fossil record of them dating back over 50 million years. Can you find anything specific on this page that you feel is incorrect? http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

Do you think all these fossils are a bunch of different animals that are very similar to horses, but are not stages of horse evolution?

 

[QUALTHWAR]

I just noticed this part near the bottom of that page i linked to above, but they say this:

How can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if you insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory.

[And there is other evidence for evolution that is totally independent of the fossil record -- developmental biology, comparative DNA & protein studies, morphological analyses, biogeography, etc. The fossil record, horses included, is only a small part of the story.]

Creationists are thus forced into illogical, unjustified attacks of fossil dating methods, or irrelevant and usually flat-out wrong proclamations about a supposed "lack" of "transitional forms".

 

[bobtheking]

K, nobody is so dumb as to deny micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is what's bogus.

first, i will repost this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

second, do you know what hox genes are? they are relatively simple genes that control where things go (extremely simplified). for example, insects with extra eyes/limbs, moving limbs, bigger limbs, etc. result from very small changes (errors or mutations) in hox genes.

hox genes are why so many organisms have similar structures but they are in different configurations.

is it that hard to believe that small mutations in hox genes could result in chimps evolving into humans? sure there are other changes, but those could easily be classed as micro-evolution (losing body hair for example).

imagine if each cell's position was controlled individually by a single gene. then yes, big changes would be extremely unlikely because moving one would most likely screw up the rest of the organ. now imagine that each cell is controlled by a 'child' gene, and there is one parent gene that controls where the organ is located, so all the cells move together relative to the parent. is it that hard to accept that that single gene could mutate to result in, say, longer legs, eyes closer together, straight back, or ...? obviously this is highly simplified but the general idea is the same.

my point is that if you can accept micro-evolution, why not macro? the difference in complexity is negligable from what i understand.

edit: to add to what Q said, here is the transitional forms section of that link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3
it has 5 examples in addition to Q's horse link.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

I've been to that first link you posted, but not the second. Good stuff in there. Have you heard about the percentage of salt in our eyes thing, where it helps to show that we evolved out of the sea?

 

[ReD_Fist]

"""""Creationists are thus forced into illogical, unjustified attacks of fossil dating methods, or irrelevant and usually flat-out wrong proclamations about a supposed "lack" of "transitional forms"."""""""""

Ya Ya ya I need more than fossils,

For starters if it took so long for it to become human there would be a even timeline of skelatins found by now.
Oh thats right all your evidence got ruined i forgot.

Oh wait at least we have a book a bible for at least 6000 years wich has stayed around.

All I can think is anyone who sets out to disprove God and only one God through ANY means is a self absorbed human,and your hell is going to be an eternity of trying to disprove God.
And don't get picky with me either,YES if you try to understand evolution you are slapping the creator around,no faith,no soul,no shame allways ME ME ME.

I bet those who follow this eveolution stuff nowdays are all for abortion,fag marrage,and anti religious symbols shouldnt be in goverment run places. hahah I know I'm right too.

Oh wait I said somthing that will offend all these college liberal brainwashed punks of the age,I still see nothing here proving there isn't a God either,ya ya it's all in my head,

But if you believe in eveolution or entertain thoughts about it,your a flamming idiot,
face the facts.

Bible=real
complete evidence on eveolution=not real.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Ya Ya ya I need more than fossils,

"[And there is other evidence for evolution that is totally independent of the fossil record -- developmental biology, comparative DNA & protein studies, morphological analyses, biogeography, etc. The fossil record, horses included, is only a small part of the story.]"

they gave you more than fossil evidense.

 

[bobtheking]

lots of idiocy

you are being intentionally disingenuous and you know it.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

He goes on about stuff without doing his homework. The bible hasn't been around for 6000 years.

"I bet those who follow this eveolution stuff nowdays are all for abortion,fag marrage,and anti religious symbols shouldnt be in goverment run places. hahah I know I'm right too."

What the hell is that all about? You know you're right? I'm not even going to bother. It's like arguing with a child. In fact, i just added him to my Ignore list.

 

[Cat Fuzz]

Horse fossils? Just an example of micro-evolution over a long period of time. Also, we have to assume that the fossils are genuine and not just some extrapolation of a hip bone or such nonsense. Some of those fossils are probably an example of birth defect, adaptation and/or micro evolution.

To suggest that a species can turn into another species is rediculous and then to go back further and suggest that life happened, by chance, out lifelessness is even more ludicrous.

 

[bobtheking]

Horse fossils? Just an example of micro-evolution over a long period of time.

all evolution is micro evolution, macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution put together.

edit: i'm saying this is true based on your statement here.

Also, we have to assume that the fossils are genuine and not just some extrapolation of a hip bone or such nonsense. Some of those fossils are probably an example of birth defect, adaptation and/or micro evolution.

i'm inclined to believe that people that have spent their lives studying these fossils are not stupid enough to be thrown by birth defects.

edit: and adaption is the entire goal of evolution, if this is the reason for the change then hasn't evolution succeeded?

To suggest that a species can turn into another species is rediculous and then to go back further and suggest that life happened, by chance, out lifelessness is even more ludicrous.

evolution does not claim to have an answer to this. no one does, and if someone does say they know for sure then they are an idiot. however, its not as ludicrous as you think. we've been over this already, look back in the thread.

 

[Evil_Cope]

Horse fossils? Just an example of micro-evolution over a long period of time. Also, we have to assume that the fossils are genuine and not just some extrapolation of a hip bone or such nonsense. Some of those fossils are probably an example of birth defect, adaptation and/or micro evolution.

To suggest that a species can turn into another species is rediculous and then to go back further and suggest that life happened, by chance, out lifelessness is even more ludicrous.

You're problem seems to be with the labels, if you don't mind me saying.

Right, horse fossils, microevolution, right? they evolve in this way from whatever they were over the ungodly length of time, till we get what they are today. let's assume that the original species/breed also survives to the modern day.

Firstly, who's to say that the original species won't mirco-evolve in another direction as well?

Well, they might still be one species, that's fair enough. They might be after all, compatible still, genetically.


Ok, lets microevolve them further, shall we? give them another few centuries or whatever.

There comes a point when two "breeds" diverge enough that they can no longer mate. This point is not far from reached with donkey's and horses. They can mate, and produce offspring. This is what a mule is.

Mule's are never fertile, because donkey and horse dna is too far apart now.

Back to the proto-horse and the modern day horse. Let's say that the modern variety has evolved enough that they are no longer gentically compatible with the proto-horse, or another breed that had microevolved along a different root than the modern horse.

Can they legitimately be called one species?

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Horse fossils? Just an example of micro-evolution over a long period of time.

lol. well, that would be macro-evolution then, wouldn't it? 55 million years probably isn't going to be considered micro.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Some of those fossils are probably an example of birth defect, adaptation and/or micro evolution.

Sorry, I’m busy watching poker. Anyway, back to this.

Maybe “some” fossils might be birth defects, but did you even read the stuff on the page?

Fossils of Mesohippus are found at many Oligocene localities in Colorado and the Great Plains of the US (like Nebraska and the Dakotas) and Canada.

Until Miohippus, there were few side branches, but the descendants of Miohippus were numerous and distinct. During the Miocene, over a dozen genera existed. Fossils of Miohippus are found at many Oligocene localities in the Great Plains, the western US and a few places in Florida.

Fossils of Parahippus are found at many early Miocene localities in the Great Plains and Florida.

Fossils of Merychippus are found at many late Miocene localities throughout the United States.

Fossils of Pliohippus are found at many late Miocene localities in Colorado, the Great Plains of the US (Nebraska and the Dakotas) and Canada.

…

I don’t believe we have a crapload of birth defeats here.

 

[bobtheking]

I don’t believe we have a crapload of birth defeats here.

not to mention the same birth defect repeatedly.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

I don't think they want to read up on what's going on. If they did, they soon learn that the evidence is overwhelming. That would throw a monkey wrench into their belief system.

 

[bobtheking]

dude, who needs education. that is for punks to get liberal brainwashing.

my bible tells me everything i gots to know. anyone who disagrees with me is a fag lovin', baby abortin', god hatin', self absorbined fag lovin' LIEBERAL!

 

[QUALTHWAR]

That sounds familar.

 

[Stilgar]

dude, who needs education. that is for punks to get liberal brainwashing.

my bible tells me everything i gots to know. anyone who disagrees with me is a fag lovin', baby abortin', god hatin', self absorbined fag lovin' LIEBERAL!

This is so ironic. You can point to evidence to support your theory until you're blue in the face, but it's still just a theory and not eveyone has to believe it unconditionally. You're your own worst enemy here. I agree that creationism, taught as fact, probably doesn't have a place in public schools alongside endeavours of a purely rational nature. But that's not exactly the issue here, is it?

So quit whining, you sissy pants bitch.

: p

 

[Nachimir]

I don't think they want to read up on what's going on. If they did, they soon learn that the evidence is overwhelming. That would throw a monkey wrench into their belief system.

It did mine. Evolution wasn't exactly a sticking point, but I did ignore it for a few years. Humanist fiction and philosophy did most of the "damage" in advance.