Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 1214
Evolution.Page 48 of 64    (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)
Evolution: life on Earth is one big extended family.


http://i.imgur.com/emPJ3.gif

The native Australian believes that the family extends beyond the living.

After watching some of Steven Hawking's "Universe" on TV I see their point
 Hoyo
Joined: 7/18/2008
Msg: 1215
Evolution.
Posted: 8/2/2011 3:44:24 PM
I guess the thing that bothers me is that to deny evolution, is to blatantly deny facts. The fact that we can witness evolution in our life times is pretty good proof!

For example: a species of freshwater sickleback fish living in a very polluted lake in the US were very typical of their species. They lived in very dark, murky water where hiding from predators was easy. In the 1960s the US government began a very aggressive clean up of that lake. By 2006, the water was quite clear. Now, applying the theory of evolution, you'd think that those same fish would A) be wiped out or their population greatly diminished due to their inability to hide in murky water, or B) they would develop a defensive adaptation. Those same fish today look very different from how they looked in the 60's. They now have a bony plates covering their body.

To deny evolution, you MUST say that the "old" sicklebacks vanished, and this "new" sickleback simply appeared. You also have to ignore their matching DNA. If there is another explanation, please, let me know! (I can provide even more examples of this, if you like)
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 1216
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 8/2/2011 8:49:24 PM
The argument that you would hear in this thread is that they were the same "kind" and that the new form was simply within the range of variation and adaptability of the previous one. Similar evidence has previously been provided several times, and identical claims made in response. The bottom line is that those making such claims have zero understanding of either genetics OR evolution.

Culex molestus and Caridina murrayata are excellent examples of new species arising recently enough to be observed. There is an enormous list of species of frogs and lizards which quite adequately demonstrate all of the means by which genetic changes take place and accumulate in a genome, with gene duplication and polyploidy taking the lead for mechanisms which produce lots of extra DNA to accumulate changes in. A pair of copies of a gene allows it to function normally. Two, three, 20 more pairs provide much room for mutation, so long as one pair continues to fulfill the original purpose. HomeoBox is the classic, but far from only example. All previously discussed.

The basic claim that XX couldn't possibly have evolved from the same ancestor as YY because there just wasn't enough time, is patently false. Fossils provide a benchmark for when an organism existed which had traits ancestral to both. Measured rates of genetic change provide the other critical benchmark. Measure the genetic differences between XX and YY, factor in an established rate of change for the group in which they are included, and you typically arrive at a common genetic origin at roughly the same time as is indicated by the fossils. So "yes", there most definitely IS sufficient time. What is lacking is any evidence AGAINST evolution driven by selection. Evolution itself is fact, and something humans have used to their advantage for millenia to produce domestic crops and livestock which bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors. Domestic horses and domestic corn are genetically and physically HIGHLY divergent from Przewalski's horse and teosinte, but the former two are both human-selected species which evolved from the latter two.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 1217
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 8/2/2011 10:07:20 PM
What are you talking about, and how is it in the least relevant or correct?


I find it hard to believe that only the intellectually strong survive.

Who said they did?

evolution demands that one is not singular and process oriented.

Evolution has no such requirement.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 1218
Evolution.
Posted: 8/2/2011 11:40:33 PM

Hi Alan....joy is essential.

Joy often evolves to sadness then back again
 Pinayto
Joined: 2/5/2011
Msg: 1219
Evolution.
Posted: 8/10/2011 8:09:39 PM
Seriously how can you believe evolution when the evolution science presents is just shrimp turning into shrimp or mosquito evolve from ..... wait for it.... mosquito.

Where is the significant evolutionary changes of human in its present form compared to cro magnon/neandethals?

Why are all forms of species as we know today including humans not evolve anymore? We've been evolved in this form for thousands of years.
 Hoyo
Joined: 7/18/2008
Msg: 1220
Evolution.
Posted: 8/11/2011 9:59:11 AM

Seriously how can you believe evolution when the evolution science presents is just shrimp turning into shrimp or mosquito evolve from ..... wait for it.... mosquito.

Where is the significant evolutionary changes of human in its present form compared to cro magnon/neandethals?

Why are all forms of species as we know today including humans not evolve anymore? We've been evolved in this form for thousands of years.


Evolution takes millions of years for significant changes to arise. It is impossible for anyone to view this change.

From your postings, I'm assuming you're a naturalist that doesn't accept evolution, which seems to be a rare thing. I say this because you say you don't accept evolution because you can't "see" it happening, I assume you apply this same logic because you can't "see" a god(s). Is that correct?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1222
Evolution.
Posted: 8/13/2011 5:01:41 AM

Seriously how can you believe evolution when the evolution science presents is just shrimp turning into shrimp or mosquito evolve from ..... wait for it.... mosquito.


Nope, still not gettin' it. Evolution is unpredictable. If mosquitoes have not "evolved," it's because there's been no need for them to evolve. Evolution is often the result of changes in the environment. Mosquitoes are well adapted to their environments.

Besides, how can we not "believe" in evolution when a) we have evidence of evolution and b) the alternative is an unseen magic sky man?


Where is the significant evolutionary changes of human in its present form compared to cro magnon/neandethals?


There is evidence that neanderthals were, in fact, an offshoot of human evolution. A "branch point" in the tree of evolution. The fact that you are unaware of this is indication of your poor understanding of evolution. Which means you are arguing a subject you know little about.


Why are all forms of species as we know today including humans not evolve anymore? We've been evolved in this form for thousands of years.


Who says they're not? If you want to make grand, sweeping statements like this, you'd better provide citations.

In the meantime, here's something to sink your teeth into.

http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol4n1/genome.xml
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1223
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:25:45 AM
changes in alleles cause a loss of genetic information, not a gain.
a gain would be needed for molecules to man evolution.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1224
Evolution.
Posted: 8/13/2011 7:42:45 PM

changes in alleles cause a loss of genetic information, not a gain.
a gain would be needed for molecules to man evolution.


Please, offer some sort of citation for that rather grand proclamation, would you?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 1225
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 8/13/2011 8:12:25 PM

Please, offer some sort of citation for that rather grand proclamation, would you?

Don't put in so much effort. The claims are simply wrong, start to finish.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1226
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:37:24 PM
if you can find an adaption procces that adds new information to the genome, I'd be impressed, and so would all the scientists that earn a living at it and don"t take evolution seriously.

do I have to explain recombination.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 1227
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 8/13/2011 10:06:21 PM
Please don't. You don't have a useful understanding of genetics, certainly not useful enough to explain it. There are many genetic processes which DO increase the genome size, and I have described them more than once in this thread. They're not "adaptation processes" - they're replication errors (gene duplication, chromosomal non-disjunction, polyploidy), which have the consequence of increasing the number of templates available on which other errors can act. That leaves at least one normally functional copy of a gene, in addition to others, which through their additional errors (inversion, addition, deletion) do other things.

Perhaps you missed the last three times I mentioned Homeobox genes, which are a great example of a single gene duplicated numerous times, with small errors leading to extra functions. The mouthparts, antennae, and wings of invertebrates are also great examples of features formed this way, as are ribs, vertebrae, earparts, and gills. Many such examples have also been confirmed experimentally in things like fruitflies, by changing the position, number, or makeup of particular genes. Move the gene, the body part forms in a different position. Change the gene, the body part forms differently. Change the number of copies, change the number of parts.

There is very good reason that I would doubt that any meritable scientist who makes a living in genetics, would not understand these things. This is undergraduate material. You don't get a BSc in biology without it, much less become a "scientist" in genetics or biology of any sort.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1228
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 8/13/2011 10:15:27 PM

as much as you like to pretend that they are brand new information, those are all recombinations of existing genetic information.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1229
Evolution.
Posted: 8/14/2011 1:20:07 PM

as much as you like to pretend that they are brand new information, those are all recombinations of existing genetic information.


Argument from personal ignorance. You don't understand anything that Frog_O says, so it must be "wrong."
 Pinayto
Joined: 2/5/2011
Msg: 1230
Evolution.
Posted: 8/14/2011 3:16:36 PM
There's a video on youtube that shows how the scientists are trying to make jurassic park a reality. They use chicken eggs first, unsuccessful, they say turkey eggs are more successful but they ran out of DNA from fossils.

LOL, ok so at least if science is successful in that, like literally creating dinosaurs from eggs of chicken or turkey or whatever, I might believe their evolution theory. But alas science has a 'good' excuse - the DNA from fossils is just not enough to recreate dinosaur to prove their theory.

Basically my main point is ---- Science's evolution is easier said than done. I mean yeah okay you understand their evolution jargon but it seems to always fail in PRACTICAL application. As in their failure to create a dinosaur from the eggs of chicken or turkey. The explanation of it is crystal clear to science world. They know how and what to do but the outcome is always nil. lol.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1231
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 8/14/2011 5:50:29 PM
Most of the debate leaves out RNA influences from extraterrestrial events, and the just as equal, alien god thang. That in turn begs for the origin of the alien gods, and who created them ad infinitum. I doubt origins, theories, and absolutes, but kinda like possibilities and all their infinite variations. The Universe is too weird and complex for most mere mortals. They have to create stuff to survive the oddness...and the odder the Godder it seems.

The Summerian Annunaki gods are as viable as any theories. To me it makes more sense that redneck jerkoffs from the hinterlands of the universe could have manipulated this picnic spot like many others.
http://www.ancientaliens.biz/tag/early-sumerian-era/
 Pinayto
Joined: 2/5/2011
Msg: 1232
Evolution.
Posted: 8/14/2011 10:50:02 PM
Well, that's many of the reasons why I doubt evolution plus I just can't accept that people more like animals like the most inhumane serial killers, pedophiles, rapists, etc. some of them death is not enough penalty, life sentence is not enough it's an easy price to pay to the lives they destroyed and ended for non sensible reasons. I take comfort that they suffer eternally when they die. Likewise, their innocent victims that did not deserve that, be comforted eternally. Me, so I live, I build material assets from working hard, when I die, I can't take them with me, not even clothes. I feel comfort in my belief that my hard work here will be rewarded as consolation for material things I left when I die, what about the loved ones that I won't be able to see anymore. My belief gives me comfort that I will see them when I die.

I don't understand how u can live with the belief that when you die that's it. I mean why the hell did u live for in the first place.

Science with all its knowledge can't stop death. That in itself is a failure for me.

I also don't see the point of science backtracking the process how we came to be. So it's like the scientists were uh huh yes! yes! we evolved this is how it happen ha! you don't understand it sucks to be you! then they die... lol. then what? did your brilliant knowledge of evolution saves you from death? lol. WTF.
 Pinayto
Joined: 2/5/2011
Msg: 1233
Evolution.
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:18:57 PM
To build a better world for those we leave it to.

ha! so air pollution, water pollution, thinning ozone layer, global warming, is building a better world indeed. I sure hope not any 1 of department of science is majorly contributing to it, surely?

I am not afraid to die. I just can't accept that it's the end. And really? science is all that and all knowing and can't even stop aging much more death. and what's the point? what's the point to know everything about evolution when all it does is backtracks what supposedly happened how we came to be. it's like living in the past. I live for the future.
 Pinayto
Joined: 2/5/2011
Msg: 1234
Evolution.
Posted: 8/15/2011 12:10:48 AM
Still batting zero.

yeah on your own score system. my score system indicates -100 as your score
 Pinayto
Joined: 2/5/2011
Msg: 1235
Evolution.
Posted: 8/15/2011 12:31:54 AM
Science is not involved whatsoever in religion, …it's not in its purview, further, those who adhere to religious beliefs, but who aren't literalists (Say, …like the Catholic Church "official" stance), have no problem accepting evolution as fact.

Yeah, I am aware that there are Catholics, Christians or other believers that also accepts evolution, I'm not 1 of them so are you gonna sue me or something? And since they are believers, you do know that almost ALL religion believe in life after death? Different interpretations, some eternal life, some reincarnation but ultimately they believe death is but the next great adventure. Definitely not the end. sucks to be you?

batting zero is not refuted by my score system? ahhh. batman?
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 1236
Evolution.
Posted: 8/15/2011 4:14:26 AM

Thread cleaned. Please refrain from posting any more conspiracy theory nonsense and stick to scientific arguments. Nonsense posts containing vitriolic opinions unsupported by scientific evidence and reasoning will lead to vacations. Religious views belong in the religion forum and are off topic here. Thank you.
 coca2
Joined: 4/8/2010
Msg: 1237
Evolution.
Posted: 8/21/2011 8:46:20 AM
Evolution is a theory.. not fact. I actually find it amusing. Darwin, had 10 children, 2 died. He believed this was due to the fact that he married his cousin and inbreeding was the cause. I find this ironic.
 coca2
Joined: 4/8/2010
Msg: 1238
Evolution.
Posted: 8/21/2011 9:57:50 AM
I do not find it amusing that children died. The irony is a man who 's THEORY of evolution...(.and yes I know the difference between theory and fact.) When he studied species the interbred, there were problems with the offspring. Pleases do interpret what I write to fit what you want to read...Thank you
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1239
Evolution.
Posted: 8/21/2011 10:32:06 AM
Evolution is a theory.. not fact.


Not only is evolution a fact, it is observed. There is absolutely tons of evidence for it occurring and having occurred!


(.and yes I know the difference between theory and fact.)


It's obvious you don't. The evidence of the above statement points that out.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >