Evolution... a kids fairytale

Originally posted by Haxsaw
Nope, absolute fail, so first its one dog giving birth to antoehr dog, and now it's a white women giving birth the a black mans baby, and thats the best first hand evidence you have to prove that your ancestors were apes? wow, and I thought some christians had blind faith. Anyway back later for some more laughs, thanks for now.

edit on 31-7-2011 by Haxsaw because: (no reason given)

Are you sure you understand the concept of evolution? Well alright, since you obviously slept through science class in elementary school I'll put this in terms a five year old could understand for you.

A mommy and daddy who love each other very much get together and decide to have a baby. When this baby comes out of mommy's tummy it has some features of mommy's and some features of daddy's. Now let's imagine that daddy is a fast runner, and that they live somewhere out in the jungle where it's full of monsters. At night these monsters try to eat everyone because they're bad and mean. When baby grows up he is fast just like daddy, so he is able to outrun the mean monsters at night. Some of his friends are too slow though, and get eaten by the monsters.

Now when baby becomes a big boy just like daddy, he finds a girl who was also fast enough to outrun the monsters and falls in love with her. When they have babies, these babies are very fast. Those babies then have their own babies and pass on their speed to them.

The End!


Now, did you understand that or do I have to throw in some magic beard men? What I did there was explain the basic concept behind natural selection to you. You see dog breeding is the perfect example here because it's easily observable. If you want to breed a dog that has a really really flat nose, you find a male and female dog with really flat noses. They pass on their genes to their offspring, who will likely have a really flat nose. If you mate that dog with another dog that has a really flat nose, you'll get a dog with a really really flat nose. Eventually after dozens of generations this line will probably become an entirely new breed of dog, like the countless breeds you can see here:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by Haxsaw

Are you sure you understand the concept of evolution? Well alright, since you obviously slept through science class in elementary school I'll put this in terms a five year old could understand for you.

edit on 31-7-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

Wow.
Dude you have patience man.
You'd make a great teacher.
I was about to get banned

To the people arguing that dog breeding isn't evolution......I am speechless. You are seeing the dogs turn from wolves, into different breeds of dogs. The animals don't stay the same, they change over time, meaning that they are evolving. If they weren't evolving, they wouldn't be changing. It's not just fur being darker for certain dogs, their entire biology is being altered. More muscle is being added here, bones are shrunk here, the jaw grows slightly larger, and so on.

How can people argue against evolution, calling it a "fairytale", when their sole scientific source of information for the creation of life on Earth is a book that is several thousands of years old? Do you people realize your book isn't science? It's a book. Your religious book contradicts the dozens of other religious books that say their deity exists.

Do you realize how incredibly unrealistic and fairytale-esque the Bible is? For example: an elderly man constructed a boat large enough to fit two of every organism on the planet, which would be at least tens of millions of organisms. Do you know how big that boat would have to be? What did he feed them? Animals eat other animals, what was preventing those animals from eating each other? Did Noah just blow into a conch like Ron Burgundy, and yell "Animals, assemble!", and they came to his boat? What about animals that can only survive in certain climates?

The Bible is the definition of a fairy-tale. Evolution is science.

"Now let's imagine that daddy is a fast runner, and that they live somewhere out in the jungle where it's full of monsters. At night these monsters try to eat everyone because they're bad and mean. When baby grows up he is fast just like daddy, so he is able to outrun the mean monsters at night"

But what we don't ever see is mommy and daddy growing wings so they can just fly away....

"What I did there was explain the basic concept behind natural selection to you"

Darwin's concept has to do with natural selection as well as mutations...natural selection by itself is not the same as Darwin's idea of evolution.

"You see dog breeding is the perfect example here because it's easily observable. If you want to breed a dog that has a really really flat nose, you find a male and female dog with really flat noses. They pass on their genes to their offspring, who will likely have a really flat nose. If you mate that dog with another dog that has a really flat nose, you'll get a dog with a really really flat nose. Eventually after dozens of generations this line will probably become an entirely new breed of dog, like the countless breeds you can see here?"

Unforutnately you still just have a dog with a flat nose...not a whale with fins and a blow hole. Numerous expierements have been conducted with fruit flies because they have a life span of only 2 weeks...everytime, no matter what changes occured, after an average of 10 generations the fruit flies always reverted back to there original form...they never became something else besides fruit flies.

reply to post by steve124

But what we don't ever see is mommy and daddy growing wings so they can just fly away....

Yeah, we also didn't see them grow fins and jump into the ocean, or grow really big teeth, but what's your point? Because the evolutionary path that you imagine didn't occur, the one that actually happened didn't occur?

Unforutnately you still just have a dog with a flat nose...not a whale with fins and a blow hole. Numerous expierements have been conducted with fruit flies because they have a life span of only 2 weeks...everytime, no matter what changes occured, after an average of 10 generations the fruit flies always reverted back to there original form...they never became something else besides fruit flies.

Maybe you're forgetting the fact that wolves evolved into the dogs we have nowadays. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/140d57663485.jpg[/atsimg] Do you think those things were on Noah's Ark too?

People on here are arguing simple evolutionary occurrences that really don't have bearing on the main point of the thread. At least as far as I could see. Even if you believe in evolution, if you think that all of this in the universe, including conscious life, is all chance; then you're extremely naive/close-minded. More so than those that blindly follow any belief system. I have the same viewpoint as the OP because I'm an artist and I realize that the universe is art. Without me, would the images just assemble themselves? No, not if you waited there for a trillion years.

People are answering by saying, evolution is provable just look at 2 different people who breed....yea what does that have to prove about the universe and/or bigbang being coincidence. To believe that all this sprang from nothing, in an instant, for no reason, takes absolute faith to believe in. It dumbfounds me that people argue otherwise..

Originally posted by TupacShakur
To the people arguing that dog breeding isn't evolution......I am speechless. You are seeing the dogs turn from wolves, into different breeds of dogs. The animals don't stay the same, they change over time, meaning that they are evolving. If they weren't evolving, they wouldn't be changing. It's not just fur being darker for certain dogs, their entire biology is being altered. More muscle is being added here, bones are shrunk here, the jaw grows slightly larger, and so on.

Which is precisely why it seems certainly possible (and plausible) for the account of Noah's Ark to have actually taken place. There's no "evolution" going on here, because that would imply much more than simple "adaptive" nature and "selective breeding". If Noah simply gathered two dogs, which carried the genetic makeup of, example, tall dogs, small dogs, black dogs, white dogs, etc.. then it could be possible that all the breeds (some 400 today) came from two single pairs.

How can people argue against evolution, calling it a "fairytale", when their sole scientific source of information for the creation of life on Earth is a book that is several thousands of years old? Do you people realize your book isn't science? It's a book. Your religious book contradicts the dozens of other religious books that say their deity exists.

I often wonder how evolutions can argue against Creationism. You blame us for relying on our "religious" book as a source of all information? Gee, why does that sound familiar..?

Oh yea.

Do you realize how incredibly unrealistic and fairytale-esque the Bible is? For example: an elderly man constructed a boat large enough to fit two of every organism on the planet, which would be at least tens of millions of organisms. Do you know how big that boat would have to be? What did he feed them? Animals eat other animals, what was preventing those animals from eating each other? Did Noah just blow into a conch like Ron Burgundy, and yell "Animals, assemble!", and they came to his boat? What about animals that can only survive in certain climates?

Incorrect. God never told Noah to get ALL the animals on the face of the planet, only within the immediate area, which would be plausible since, remember, it stated "after each of their kinds".

And yes, the Bible states how big the Ark is, to the measurements. And has NO ONE heard of hibernation? If you don't know, animals don't need to eat during hibernation, they preserve their energy.

The Bible is the definition of a fairy-tale. Evolution is science.

I can make bold claims like that too.

Hey there, fellow programmer here; But, before we go down an argument from authority, let's analyze each individual claim being made in this thread and clear up some misconceptions, fallacies, and ignorance.

First I'll deal with the claim that a comparison can be drawn between a computer program and the universe. Yes, comparisons can be drawn. No, the universe is not a computer program (or at least one that we are capable of, as i won't get into the simulation experiment). Slight changes in computer code can throw off entire programs because these are actual languages that have syntax, rules that need to be adhered to. A computer program is fundamentally different from the universe because all those variables need to be programmed in manually, rather than as a byproduct or direct result from the forces at work in our universe.

Basically the argument you're attempting here is the Fine-Tuning Argument.
"There's all these variables that are so fine-tuned to the specifications needed for life in this universe that there must be a designer."

Well one, this isn't a critique on evolution, but I like this argument so let's run with it. There are four fundamental forces at work in our universe. Gravity, which holds mass together. The weak force, responsible for atomic decay. Electromagnetic, the interaction between electrically charged particles. And the big daddy Strong Force, which holds the atoms together. The argument goes as follows: "If the strong force were alterred ever so slightly, then hydrogen atoms would never be able to fuse into the heavier elements inside of high mass stars, and the universe would a dim, cold, expanse."
At the atomic scale the strong force is about 100 times stronger than the electromagnetic force so the idea that if it were alterred ever so slightly and life wouldn't be possible is a bit disingenous.(*) Secondly, we exist, we can agree on that. It follows from our existence that the variables of the universe and the laws of physics are conducive to life. The elements that make up our bodies are based on chemistry, chemistry that is based off the laws of physics. Trying to derive chance from a singular event is a futile goal, the things that happenend did happen and naturally the variables conducive to life would produce life. It's a bit like recieving a red ball from a friend and then saying "Wow what are the chances I would recieve a red ball, of all the trillions of permutations you could have given me, you gave me the red ball." This relates because we don't know what other combinations of life might arise had those settings been, trying to draw any deeper meaning that that they are isn't helpful.
This same argument gets attempted at a planetary scale quite frequently. Of all the desolate planets out there, we happened to have been placed on Earth, a planet conducive to life. Well DUH, any planet conducive to life is naturally going to be the one supporting life over the ones that aren't. And any life on this planet might develop the critical thinking ability to wonder why they are on this planet and not any of the others (Short answer, if they could have, they probably would have). The entire argument is "This is all so complex it couldn't possibly have arisen from natural processes so it had to have happened because a God magic'd it into existence." But this does nothing to remedy the problem proposed from all this complexity, as any creator would necessarily be just as or more complex as the creation. Begging the question, how does this complexity arise?

As a side note to the "fine-tuning", many physicists will say the variables, as you call them (which are actually constants), were never free to vary in the first place. Why aren't squares circles? Why isn't 2 + 2 equal to blue?

(*)-The value for the strong force in our universe is 0.007, if it were say 0.006 then there would be nothing but hydrogen. But if it were 0.008 all the hydrogen would fuse up to make heavier elements and we'd be left without hydrogen, now this continuum from .006 to .008 determines how far along the table of elements we can let the cascade of nuclear fusion go.

Originally posted by samaka
science doesn't give answers it gives excuses, excuses that constantly changing as we "learn" more about the universe.

Wait a minute, are you trying to say that the greatest part of the scientific method is why you don't believe in science. You could have left your entire post bare, save for this line and it would get the same point across. Science changes its stance when NEW EVIDENCE comes in, as opposed to dogma that remains the same despite evidence. It would be a failure of science if it couldn't correct itself. It's become clear to me that the idea of not knowing is extremely disturbing for you, which is the humble admission that scientists are free to make.

Originally posted by samaka
Science will never have an answer to how we got here, the very foundation of evolution stands on paper bricks, it's easily picked apart and falls straight to the ground and I will show you how with my next thread..

Nice logic "Science has no answer, therefore it will never have an answer". Not only does the conclusion not follow, but the premise is flawed.

Originally posted by samaka
To believe in evolution you must require faith and I mean alot of faith. Evolutionist have faith in mere coincidences and not just 1 coincidence but we are talking about trillions (most likely alot more than that) coincidences and each coincidence are harbored by trillions of variables that could alter the outcome such as the big bang theory.

Oh here we go again, "it takes more faith to believe in science than it does to believe god created everything." No, I'm sorry but that's just utterly wrong. Science has this stuff called evidence, it nullifies the requirement of faith. (And i won't even get into the failings of faith when applied to choosing a religion.) Evolution isn't a bunch of coincidences, this is your fundamental flaw in understanding. Evolution isn't accidental or coincidental, you need to do more research if you think that's what evolution is. As a programmer I would think you would know this as an evolutionary principle is applied very often in solution finding, i.e. Genetic Algorithms. Individuals that are more fit than their competition are more likely to pass on their genes to future generations. There's nothing accidental or coincidental here, it's a direct correlation between the fitness of an individual from any given gene and how likely they go on to breed and pass on that genetic information. A moth with camoflauge 1% more effective is more likely to survive and pass on more genetic material to the next generation than one without that +1%. Just as a moth with 5% more effectiveness is more likely than the +1%. But a genetic mutation that gave a moth -1% IS LESS LIKELY TO SURVIVE, and in turn less likely to pass on it's genetic material. NOTHING ACCIDENTAL, rather the product of selection pressures, in this case Natural Selection. Artificial Selection is demonstrable to the simplest of people, selecting out certain traits and breeding for them, e.g. Dogs, Cats, other domesticated creatures, agriculture (the banana being a wonderfully ironic example).

Originally posted by samaka
In order for the big bang theory to even occur every trillions (and I'm just throwing a number out because the real number is unfathomable) of variables must be "perfect" and I don't care how big the universe really is because the chances of it occuring by chance is next to nil and that's just 1 event.

You're just throwing a number out, because YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Ill go a step further, name me one "variable" that if different would have prevented the big bang from occuring.

Originally posted by samaka
I'm still waiting for an anwser how 2 big rocks at the perfect speed, mass, dimensions, rotation, angle, time, distance collided and formed the earth perfectly distanced from the sun, rotation, mass, gravity and it's very own perfect moon with similar properties and then by chance life combusted from non-living cells and evolved with such a complex DNA structure that science itself hasn't even scratch the surface, all happened by un-guided events within a mere 4 billion years?

Now you're just trying to throw out as many things as possible to cloud the issue so you don't have to focus on one subject such as evolution. I can explain each of these issues in further depth if required because this isn't a simple answer (you're trying to boil down all the scientific models from the big bang, stellar and planetary formation, abiogenesis to evolution) but from what i can tell it sounds like you don't want an answer.

Originally posted by samaka
To say for these un-guided events to occur is like for me to run a simple programing script that throws out random numbers and programs itself a state of the art video game all with 3d graphics, motion, physics, the entire game by mere chance.... not likely

Well if the universe actually functioned like that you might be justified in your disbelief. Fortunately, it doesn't.

Originally posted by dbates
It's not just the complexity that kills me. Evolution's assumption that things evolve to get better is a joke when the second law of thermodynamics clearly says that systems naturally progress from order to disorder. But here on Earth, in this closed system, things get better despite what happens in the rest of the Universe. So either way they're in a weird place.

edit on 30-7-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)

Since you seem to like throwing in thermodynamics where it isn't supposed to be applied, do you know the other laws of thermodynamics? Don't bother. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The earth IS NOT a closed system, it takes in constant energy from the suns nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium releasing energy and heat.

i suppose beleiving in evolution does require a little faith. but it requires a lot less faith then beleiving in creationism. there is a lot of evidance to support evolution and although the working theory on the origins of the universe is not likely to be proven anytime soon, they are still easier to swollow than the story that god put us here.
oh, god put us here, but why, and how.... just coz he did and we gotta figure it out ourselves. thanx but no thanx, ill take science over religion anyday.

reply to post by samaka


Correct ... if one of any number of variables in the history of the universe had been different we would not be here.

Your argument places far too much importance on "us" and assumes untold trillions of mechanisms, constants, and evolutionary processes had to fall in line to create us because ... after all, our existence was inevitable.

That's faith. Science understands that stuff happened. And we are the result.

Originally posted by samaka
Evolution is so flawed that many evolutionary biologist such as Michael Rose say "The tree of life is being politely buried" he even admits the whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.

And now let's look at it in context.

"Dr Rose said: "The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What's less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."
He says biology is vastly more complex than we thought and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century."

Vastly more complex than the few branches of the tree that darwin first proposed. and has been built off of. None of what is said undermines evolution in the slightest.

VASTLY MORE COMPLEX. Not vastly simpler "Goddunit and made all the species like they are."

Wow people who think evolution is a stupid "theory", really confuse me i just don't get that type of person. This is why agnostics are the best

Gooooooo Agnosticism!


EDIT: I think its looking like that we are all just a program on some things 'computer' All DNA is, is ones and zeros

the A, T, C and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to the "0" and "1" in the binary code of computer software. Like software to a computer, the DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the organic cell.
The DNA code, like a floppy disk of binary code, is quite simple in its basic paired structure. However, it's the sequencing and functioning of that code that's enormously complex.
Through recent technologies like x-ray crystallography, we now know that the cell is not a "blob of protoplasm", but rather a microscopic marvel that is more complex than the space shuttle. The cell is very complicated, using vast numbers of phenomenally precise DNA instructions to control its every function.

Originally posted by kalunom
I find it as likely that we evolved from apes as apes devolved from us.

I agree with you. We live under a certain, specific, set of laws (programs) that produce life out of what would otherwise be chaos or, equally likely, nothing at all.

Who wrote the rulebook? No idea, but to say that all this happened by chance is just lazy. And I say lazy because putting your faith in the theories of the much-revered scientists of our time is just that. Lazy.

Putting faith in science where we all (lay persons and scientists) have to make the effort to learn and understand is lazy. Whereas attributing everything to a mythical creature is a sign of effort and deep thought...



It is astonishingly sad that after thousands of years of human advancement there are those who still wish to believe in the myths of our ancestors. Very sad.

reply to post by TupacShakur


The dog photo is a useless comparison as you atheists are arguing that evolution is a naturally occurring phenomena, well the two images do not help your arguement as humans created the chiwawa and other domesticated dogs through selective breeding which is not evolution as it involves human interference!

"oh yeah....."

reply to post by malcr


effort to understand! let me remind you of something

"uhh two random uhh atoms colided and uhh they created uhhh the uhhh universe uhhh"

Yes takes alot of effort to understand that, that two non existant atoms came into existence, oh wait..... doesent that sound awfully familiar to what we say about God, that he came into existence, why should these two random atoms be allowed to perform such a miracle but not God! What gives anyone the right to judge God!

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by samaka

 

Even if evolution occured, who programmed evolution? How does the laws of the universe know to respond a certain way and take certain actions of course that evolved humans all by chance?

Survival of the fittest did the programming. It's a learn as you go program. If a species wasn't able to survive in it's environment it would cease to exist. And if god programmed man he did a pretty poor job don't you think?

Would robots be better? A society of robots that that do everything perfectly and never make mistakes. They never achieve or underachieve. What's the point?

reply to post by malcr


allow me to correct you, it has not been years of human advancement but years of human technological advancement, we ourselves have not changed!

Originally posted by ShadowZion
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

The dog photo is a useless comparison as you atheists are arguing that evolution is a naturally occurring phenomena, well the two images do not help your arguement as humans created the chiwawa and other domesticated dogs through selective breeding which is not evolution as it involves human interference!

Evolution is simply describing the change. The process of evolution can happen through different selection pressures; natural selection, artificial selection, and several others. The only difference between natural and artificial being the role humans play in selecting traits.

What's taking place in dog breeding is evolution by means of artificial selection.

It's the same principle, certain traits are selected and increased in subsequent generations of the population. If you think this is a refutation of evolution I'm sorry but there is a vast amount of information you need to continue to research.

reply to post by Stuffed


I have done my studies on science and evolution, selective breeding is a different thing to evolution, so if i take your children and force them to breed with a african family that are known for their athletic traits i have just made your grand children higher up on the evolutionary scale, this is what your telling me, get a hold of yourself!

selective breeding is when i interfere to create an animal that can for example get me higher quality milk

evolution is the changing of an entire species - to adapt and to better suit its environment for survival

if one monkey cannot survive all of them will die as they are all the same!



I did not do research to find out about science, it was rammed down my ears in my school and college days and i have analyzed it, understood it, and let its conclusions come to me - yes that is from my signature and yes i can put it there because i made it up!

Originally posted by ShadowZion
reply to post by Stuffed

 

I have done my studies on science and evolution, natural selection and selective breeding are two different things to evolution, so if i take your children and force them to breed with a african family that are known for their athletic traits i have just made your grand children higher up on the evolutionary scale, this is what your telling me, get a hold of yourself!

You can't sit here and tell me you've done your studies on science and evolution when you keep saying artificial selection isn't evolution.

I never claimed natural selection and artificial selection are the same thing. What they do have in common though is that they both are theories that explain an individual selection pressure for evolution. Saying "higher up on the evolutionary scale" only reinforces the fact that you are misunderstanding something about evolution here. There's no goal being worked towards, everything is constantly evolving as genes change. The evolution isn't noticeable from one generation to the next either, but yes, those children would have more likelihood of athletic ability.

"evolution is the changing of an entire species - to adapt and to better suit its environment for survival "

No, that is Evolution by means of Natural Selection. It seems like your hang up on evolution is the classification of species. If we were to continue selectively breeding whichever animals you'd like for this thought experiment, eventually what we'd end up with would be different enough from the original that they could no procreate, thus classifying as a new species. This is well documented. Research: "Artificial Speciation"