Evolution / creation

[PredFan]

Its funny, for the past 40 years as a christian, I thought evolution was a fact. Today not so sure ever since a poster in another forum ask this question. Why would a creature with fur, strong as heck...evolve to a furless weak creature?

Easy. Environmental pressures.

When fur becomes a liability, and strength a waste of energy, the animal evolves.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Somewhere on You Tube is a video of a (local, I believe) AZ legislator opining that the earth is only 6000 years old.

What is frightening abut that is that a majority of voters had to believe her for her to have been elected.

 

[PredFan]

Somewhere on You Tube is a video of a (local, I believe) AZ legislator opining that the earth is only 6000 years old.

What is frightening abut that is that a majority of voters had to believe her for her to have been elected.

Unlike lefties, many of us Conservatives aren't one-issue voters. I'd vote for someone who believed in evolution (which i don't) if they were fiscally conservative.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Its funny, for the past 40 years as a christian, I thought evolution was a fact. Today not so sure ever since a poster in another forum ask this question. Why would a creature with fur, strong as heck...evolve to a furless weak creature?

I am assuming that you are talking about the evolution of man when the question is "Why would a creature with fur, strong as heck...evolve to a furless weak creature?".
If so, then just remember that a human can alter (and to a certain extent control) his environment. Before control of fire (heat) there existed a need of fur to keep warm. Today, I can create warmth in my home to protect me from cold. I can also layer on clothing to keep me warm. My body may be weak against nature, but my mind has strength to overcome that weakness. That strength comes in many forms besides just controlling heat. I can create tools that allow me (a weak animal) to kill stronger animals-- knives, spears, axes and bows give me power to conquer animals much stronger (physically) than I am.
Evolution is not just about physical attributes, but also about superior mental attributes (the brain). For example, the largest and fastest lion will soon starve to death if he hunts for zebras in the ocean instead of the savannah.
Darwin focused on physical attributes that were beneficial to a species, and that does matter, but mental attributes also matter. Man became the top of the hierarchy using his brain, not his brawn.

Thats fine if it happened fast. but we know it had to happen slow.. and what a about coitus? We all know in the animal kingdom the strong get the female, It dont make sense to evolve weak btw I always like that one book I read like 20 years ago (forgot the name) but suggested ancient alliens when they built this planet, just planted dinosaur bones in the earth to confuse us. lol

 

[itfitzme]

Its funny, for the past 40 years as a christian, I thought evolution was a fact. Today not so sure ever since a poster in another forum ask this question. Why would a creature with fur, strong as heck...evolve to a furless weak creature?

No fleas, man.

 

[itfitzme]

Somewhere on You Tube is a video of a (local, I believe) AZ legislator opining that the earth is only 6000 years old.

What is frightening abut that is that a majority of voters had to believe her for her to have been elected.

Unlike lefties, many of us Conservatives aren't one-issue voters. I'd vote for someone who believed in evolution (which i don't) if they were fiscally conservative.

Still ingroup outgroup, single leftie thinker.

 

[itfitzme]

Its funny, for the past 40 years as a christian, I thought evolution was a fact. Today not so sure ever since a poster in another forum ask this question. Why would a creature with fur, strong as heck...evolve to a furless weak creature?

I am assuming that you are talking about the evolution of man when the question is "Why would a creature with fur, strong as heck...evolve to a furless weak creature?".
If so, then just remember that a human can alter (and to a certain extent control) his environment. Before control of fire (heat) there existed a need of fur to keep warm. Today, I can create warmth in my home to protect me from cold. I can also layer on clothing to keep me warm. My body may be weak against nature, but my mind has strength to overcome that weakness. That strength comes in many forms besides just controlling heat. I can create tools that allow me (a weak animal) to kill stronger animals-- knives, spears, axes and bows give me power to conquer animals much stronger (physically) than I am.
Evolution is not just about physical attributes, but also about superior mental attributes (the brain). For example, the largest and fastest lion will soon starve to death if he hunts for zebras in the ocean instead of the savannah.
Darwin focused on physical attributes that were beneficial to a species, and that does matter, but mental attributes also matter. Man became the top of the hierarchy using his brain, not his brawn.

Thats fine if it happened fast. but we know it had to happen slow.. and what a about coitus? We all know in the animal kingdom the strong get the female, It dont make sense to evolve weak btw I always like that one book I read like 20 years ago (forgot the name) but suggested ancient alliens when they built this planet, just planted dinosaur bones in the earth to confuse us. lol

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.

CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below (link to "Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments"), natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Its funny, for the past 40 years as a christian, I thought evolution was a fact. Today not so sure ever since a poster in another forum ask this question. Why would a creature with fur, strong as heck...evolve to a furless weak creature?

No fleas, man.

lol, good point.

 

[Missourian]

We've seen millions of generations of bacteria in the pursuit of scientific research...far more that the possible total generations of all larger forms of life on Earth...yet the bacteria has never "evolved" into a high form of life.

Bacteria HAS exhibited many mutations and natural selection...but there is not a single instance of evolutionary change...after millions of generations of laboratory study, it's still bacteria.

 

[itfitzme]

"How turtles got their shells". ?

Got me. I always thought they bought them through a shell estate broker. That or if they found an empty one, and lived in it for seven years, they could claim squatters rights.

I base it on observations of homeless snails, commonly refered to as slugs. Eventually, they get a job, rent for a while, save up a down payment, and move into one of the many empty shells that can be found in the garden.

Hermit crabs are similar, to the turtles. They claim squatters rights.

'cept turtles are hatched with shells and the shells grow with them. They don't move out of one shell and into a larger one as they grow.

Well, so much for that hypothesis.

 

[itfitzme]

We've seen millions of generations of bacteria in the pursuit of scientific research...far more that the possible total generations of all larger forms of life on Earth...yet the bacteria has never "evolved" into a high form of life.

Bacteria HAS exhibited many mutations and natural selection...but there is not a single instance of evolutionary change...after millions of generations of laboratory study, it's still bacteria.

You haven't watched long enough.

 

[itfitzme]

Its funny, for the past 40 years as a christian, I thought evolution was a fact. Today not so sure ever since a poster in another forum ask this question. Why would a creature with fur, strong as heck...evolve to a furless weak creature?

I am assuming that you are talking about the evolution of man when the question is "Why would a creature with fur, strong as heck...evolve to a furless weak creature?".
If so, then just remember that a human can alter (and to a certain extent control) his environment. *Before control of fire (heat) there existed a need of fur to keep warm. *Today, I can create warmth in my home to protect me from cold. *I can also layer on clothing to keep me warm. *My body may be weak against nature, but my mind has strength to overcome that weakness. *That strength comes in many forms besides just controlling heat. *I can create tools that allow me (a weak animal) to kill stronger animals-- knives, spears, axes and bows give me power to conquer animals much stronger (physically) than I am.
Evolution is not just about physical attributes, but also about superior mental attributes (the brain). *For example, the largest and fastest lion will soon starve to death if he hunts for zebras in the ocean instead of the savannah.*
Darwin focused on physical attributes that were beneficial to a species, and that does matter, but mental attributes also matter. *Man became the top of the hierarchy using his brain, not his brawn.

You forgot to mention cooperation. *The ability to work together as a group, one cohesive organism. *

What has always amazed me is that animals, across species, recognize faces, eyes in particular. Brains, those jellitonous masses of specialized cells that serve the singular purpose to represent the environment, through electro-chemical signals, and change structure rapidly with the ever changing environment, have buried within them, across every manner of species, the ability to recognize faces. *

From fish to Francine, those neurological structures react feverishly to the patterns that make up a face. *Rightfully so, because below those eyes is a mouth. *Inside that mouth are, inevitably, teeth attached to a jaw that just aches to chew something soft, warm, and nutritious.

You know... my dog tried to talk, when we got him; tried to mimic my wife. *He was, really, her dog. He just couldn't form words well. That mouth and lips, that long snout of his, just couldn't do it. *He could say "rubber", but that was useless. He understood some words though, social stuff like "you mind if I sit there". *I could count the number of words he understood on two hands, but then we never had cause to learn much more. *It wasn't the whole word, in its subtle details, but rather the general sense of the sound. *Still, when I talked to him, he paid close attention and always looked me in the eyes.

He had rules, his rules, some sort of inate sense of social ethics. *His food was his, yours was yours. *If he had leftovers, you were welcome to them, not that anyone took him up on it. My wife's leftovers were his. *He'd have bitten my head of if I dared touch them. *

When we would go out for the day, we would always give him one of those dog treats, greenies or bone shaped cookies. What always amazed me was how he would save it until we got back. That is defered gratification, man. *He was a working dog breed mix, a sheep herder type. They have their level of intelligence.

The problem he had was the limitation of not having much cranium over his eyebrows, no forehead, limited visual processing. *He still, like dogs do, relied heavily on smell. *Admittedly, with smell, he had a better idea of what had neen there. I'm more of a "gotta see it" creature. *He could here a pin drop in the next room. *Between the two of us, with him knowing what had been there and what was lurking around the corner; with me knowing what it meant; we made one smarter creature.

My cat, on the other hand, couldn't find his way out of a covered litter box. *Really small brain. *I use to call him a bird brain. *He'd of hated it, if he knew what it meant. *He could find a spider from twenty feet away, clued in on movement, but then would stare at things that weren't even there. Not very reliable. *We couldn't let him go outside for a second or he'd carry every flea in the neighborhood back in with him. It was all that fur.*

I never could figure out why he so desperately wanted to sit ON me. I never could rationalize the evolutionary purpose of having to sit on everything new. Put a piece of paper down and he had to sit on it. *He'd spend five minutes working to lay on my bent knee. He would move at the speed of the minute hand on the clock, like I wasn't going to notice. Inevitably, claws were involved. Yes, I noticed.

** And when I slept, he just had to lay on top of my head. Not next to my head, on it, at least to the extent that he could get away witb. He would have slept on my face had his fur not tickled my nose. Cats, it turns out, can fly. It always involves trying to lay down in the wrong spot, on a person, in the middle of the night. *Good thing they have evolved the ability to right themselves quicky, as they don't fly very well.

He was like some autistic child, when I spoke to him, he seldom looked me in the eyes but rather stared off into the distance, staring at some invisible spider on the wall behind me.

He just didn't have that true sense ef empathy. *He knew I had eyes. He knew I was looking at him, particularly when I had riled him up a bit to much and he was focused on how bite my neck. *I dared not look away as that was the moment he knew he could pounce.

Cats, I've come to realize, are tree dwelling animals. *Whiskers, are interesting, just a tad bigger than their head so they can judge it they will fit through a hole. *Tails keep flies of of their you-know-whats.

People aren't hairless. *We have just enough to recognize when something has landed on our arm. *And our head still has some to keep it warmer. *But, for the most part, we have far less places for fleas and lice to hide. *

More interesting is how we aren't really so much a single organism, but rather an ecosystem of organisms all bundled together in a big bag of water and collagen. *Our gut is teeming with bacteria of every manner, independent little creatures that break down food for their own purpose, leaving half digested nutrients behind, to be absorbed by the stomach. *

There is some evidence that babies born by c-section don't get exposes to beneficial bacteria that is in the birth canal, thus resulting in lactose intolerance. *And curiously, my two children are lactose intolerant.

Humans have evolved to grow into their environment. *Change the growth environment and you change the human. *Change the environment and humans are changed, at a level of genetic expression, that changes not only the girl but also her eggs so that the changes are carried through generations.

Life is a feedback process. *We have seen and developed, in the sciences, electro-mechanical feedback systems which reach steady state conditions that show no evidence of the transient conditions from which they arose. *And because we created them, we are able to watch it develop from nothing more than thermal noise.

It is really quite amazing how self replicating structures, once they happen to occur, can keep recuring. *Someday we may even figure out what the unique circumstances are that allow for such an amazing process to develop. *Until then, we accept that, for that part, we just do not know exacty. *

A theory, the theory of evolution not withstanding, is not a collection of hypothesis or beliefs. *It is a collection of facts, and a collection of*words that best express those facts. *Like life itself, it adapts and evolves to emcompass its ever expanding environment. *What it doesn't do is tack on some extraneous, undemonstrated, unproven, unobserved hypothetical phenomina that is neither necessary or required.

What makes life so truely remarkable, is the self replicating, semi-competative, semi-cooperative, biochemistry that cascades from the smallest of RNA molecules, upward through the single cellular structures, individual animals, packs of animals, and to the entire social order of humams beings that move stuff all about the planet, managing to launch pieces of metal, even a few of ourselves into the deep cold of outerspace. *The Earth literaly boils over with life.

Life, even human life, is so precariously balanced. It is possible that, of all the billions and billions of stars, numbering greater than all the grains of sand on this planet, Earth is the only one that was just right. *

It would be a shame if we were to so change the conditioms of our little petri dish to such a degree as to f^€K that up. It is amazing to think that, of all those billions and billions of stars, we may be the only creatures capable of gazing up at the skies and wondering if, indeed, we are not alone. *

God did not create us and god is not going to intervene to save us. *That responsibility rests squarely on our shoulders. *If we fail at that, the*great storm of Jupiter will still churn away. *Earth will still go round the sun and the moon around the Earth. *

All that will remain will be a flag, and parts of used spacecraft, on a dusty little rock, orbiting a tiny little blue planet, flying around a little yellow star, somewhere at the edge of a galaxy in the vast expanse of the universe.

 

[PredFan]

We've seen millions of generations of bacteria in the pursuit of scientific research...far more that the possible total generations of all larger forms of life on Earth...yet the bacteria has never "evolved" into a high form of life.

Bacteria HAS exhibited many mutations and natural selection...but there is not a single instance of evolutionary change...after millions of generations of laboratory study, it's still bacteria.

Because it fits it's ecological niche. Evolution doesn't say that a species MUST evolve into something else. It only evolves enough to survive or to best it's competitors.

And bacteria and viruses evolve constantly.

 

[Missourian]

We've seen millions of generations of bacteria in the pursuit of scientific research...far more that the possible total generations of all larger forms of life on Earth...yet the bacteria has never "evolved" into a high form of life.

Bacteria HAS exhibited many mutations and natural selection...but there is not a single instance of evolutionary change...after millions of generations of laboratory study, it's still bacteria.

You haven't watched long enough.

Typical dodge...we've seen more generations of bacteria than all possible generations of animals ever possible...it that same span, according to Macro-evolutionist, every animal on earth evolved from random inorganics.

 

[t_polkow]

‘If you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.’



Why Bill Nye Is Right To Warn Against Creationism - Forbes

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gHbYJfwFgOU]Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube[/ame]

 

[itfitzme]

We've seen millions of generations of bacteria in the pursuit of scientific research...far more that the possible total generations of all larger forms of life on Earth...yet the bacteria has never "evolved" into a high form of life.

Bacteria HAS exhibited many mutations and natural selection...but there is not a single instance of evolutionary change...after millions of generations of laboratory study, it's still bacteria.

You haven't watched long enough.

Typical dodge...we've seen more generations of bacteria than all possible generations of animals ever possible...it that same span, according to Macro-evolutionist, every animal on earth evolved from random inorganics.

Because the environment didn't require it to do so. It developed into it's ecological niche.

Yeah, I get your logic. If an observation fails to show A then A cannot be thus anything that implies A must thereforembe not true.

Then again, God didn't evolve them either.

 

[Missourian]

We've seen millions of generations of bacteria in the pursuit of scientific research...far more that the possible total generations of all larger forms of life on Earth...yet the bacteria has never "evolved" into a high form of life.

Bacteria HAS exhibited many mutations and natural selection...but there is not a single instance of evolutionary change...after millions of generations of laboratory study, it's still bacteria.

Because it fits it's ecological niche. Evolution doesn't say that a species MUST evolve into something else. It only evolves enough to survive or to best it's competitors.

And bacteria and viruses evolve constantly.

But that is what the whole house of cards is based on, that lower order life forms evolved into higher order life forms.

So why would the first single celled organism with no predators and no competition feel any pressure to evolve...they filled their niche.

Shouldn't they, like the bacteria, simply multiplied a million generations and stayed single celled organisms?

 

[itfitzme]

Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator (Reasons to Believe) (Paperback)

*[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0801072093/ref=redir_mdp_mobile]Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator (Reasons to Believe):Amazon:Books[/ame]

Because, obviously, if man can create life then God could have done it. *And if God could have, then he must have.

**That's Logic.

------------------------------------

"Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab"

"Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely. "Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory.

More significantly, the scientists then mixed different RNA enzymes that had replicated, along with some of the raw material they were working with, and let them compete in what's sure to be the next big hit: "Survivor: Test Tube."

Remarkably, they bred.

And now and then, one of these survivors would screw up, binding with some other bit of raw material it hadn't been using. Hmm. That's exactly what life forms do ..."

Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab | LiveScience

---------------------

 

[Missourian]

Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator (Reasons to Believe) (Paperback)

*Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator (Reasons to Believe):Amazon:Books

Because, obviously, if man can create life then God could have done it. *And if God could have, then he must have.

**That's Logic.

------------------------------------

"Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab"

"Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely. "Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory.

More significantly, the scientists then mixed different RNA enzymes that had replicated, along with some of the raw material they were working with, and let them compete in what's sure to be the next big hit: "Survivor: Test Tube."

Remarkably, they bred.

And now and then, one of these survivors would screw up, binding with some other bit of raw material it hadn't been using. Hmm. That's exactly what life forms do ..."

Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab | LiveScience

---------------------

Time to change the subject. Got it.

 

[t_polkow]

Evolution - A theory based on facts.
Creationism - A fairy tale based on nothing.

A good definition

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.
Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

(Note Theory in scientific terms does not mean a guss that is used in common terms).

Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions


What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience