Evolution, It's only a theory

reply to post by weedwhacker


LMAO. Can't get away from anything on this site, can we?

I understand the theory of the Big Bang. I was being simplistic to make a point. Whether you say, "big rock exploded" or "primordial hot and dense initial condition infinitely expanded" ... it's basically the same idea.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by tyranny22]

reply to post by jd140


That is exactly what I was trying to point out in a post that I posted a half an hour ago.

What if intention has influence on the evolving of the body/plant. If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations.

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection higher self (that what people call god...) both evolutiontheory and religion are right but incomplete.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.

what do you think about that

Best,

turbohenk

reply to post by jd140


jd140, let's stick with THAT 'theory' for a while....

Of course, minor point.....'god' started everything, then just walked away, whistling all the while??

OK, I'm onboard with that....a 'creator' who initiated this whole mess 14-some billion years ago (by our standards), clucked and said "I done good!" and went away to meddle somewhere else.....who knows?

reply to post by jd140


That is exactly what I was trying to point out in a post that I posted a half an hour ago but it didn't make it here.

What if intention has influence on the evolving of the body/plant. If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations.

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection higher self (that what people call god...) both evolutiontheory and religion are right but incomplete.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.

what do you think about that

Best,

turbohenk

The existence of God is also just a theory, and come to think of it I can't imagine a way to test that theory either. I am a firm believer in a creator, whether he/she/it be divine or extraterestrial. The theory of evolution is a testable theory, Darwin himself spent half his life testing this theory. And his evidence and documentation are irrefutable, and make absolute sense. To say that God doesn't exist is a complete fallacy, for something had to create all of the material we see (and that which we can't see). But to also say that Darwin's theory is completely bunk, is just irresponsible and short sighted. Maybe if you think of evolution as a process that God set in motion, you would believe it. Someone posted on the first page that if God was our creator then new species should be popping up around us all the time. Nay, I say for he gave all things the ability to evolve and adapt.

PS

Man kinds view of God is the fallacy. All religions are an utter sham, and should not be followed!!!!!!

reply to post by jd140


That is exactly what I was trying to point out in a post that I posted a half an hour ago.

What if intention has influence on the evolving of the body/plant. If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations. Who/what else should know what the problem is and if there is a problem and what to want to resolve it?

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection higher self (that what people call god...) both evolutiontheory and religion are right but incomplete.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.

what do you think about that

Best,

turbohenk

reply to post by B.A.C.

Maybe we disagree on what constitutes a new species. I will agree that sometimes the adaptions do not actually create a new species, just an improved version of the species.

One example I know of that shows a new species being created is with a fruitfly in Madagascar. It seperated from a sisters species from mainland Africa long ago and became a new species in time. This new species now has genes that are incompatable with the sister species. It is not an airtight case to prove seperation, because they can produce some viable offspring together. I do think that they are different species, but you may think they are still the same. I will find better examples to make a case.

Here is the link for the fruitfly.
esciencenews.com...

Nice post. Although I'm a right wing Christian I appreciate the work the OP put into his post.

Have any of you science types ever hear of Hugh Ross? He's an astrophysicist who has made a working model supporting creation. He also addresses alot of topics like, Earths age and the fossil record. I highly recommend you visit his site.


www.reasons.org...

reply to post by tyranny22


Yup! tyranny....

Look, I have trouble wrapping my mind around the formation of our Universe.....so far, the 'string' theory evolved (gulp, there's THAT word again!) into 'membrane'...or 'brane', for short theories. A 'string' will, being one-dimensional, draw a two-dimensional plane, or 'membrane'....as it moves in three-dimensional space.

Two 'membranes' might not like each other, interact in an explosive way (sounds like last night at the bar) and the inter-action results in a new Universe being created. THIS is not my imagination talking, it's from science shows I've seen.

I don't claim to have all the facts...not about that, nor about evolution. However, I do know how to understand evidence....and infer, even if there are gaps.

We KNOW dinosaurs are extinct (except for Steven Speilberg's ranch...and birds.....) but, the BIG ones are gone, yet we KNOW they existed once upon a time.

Ok....so, three guys walk into a bar.....the fourth guy ducked!

(see, the fourth guy gets to move up the evolutionary ladder, 'cause he was smarter!)

Evolution is a theory, yes. But it is a theory with a plethora of supporting material, both living and fossilized.

In order to see Evolution at work one must only look to the adaptations in similar species that have differentiated them and made them better suited for their environments.

ie: Creatures who share common ancestors, however evolved in two completely seperate environments will show evolutionary changes making them better suited for the environments in which they have evolved.

ie: Wolf Spiders

The average wolf spider is an agile, nubile hunter with excellent eyesite.

the Kauai cave wolf spider however, having evolved over thousands of generations living in a cave setting, has lost the need for it's eyesite, and is not only blind, but no longer HAS eyes. Also, while most species of wolf spider are dark brown or black in coloration, the Kauai cave wolf spider is extremely light in color.

Wolf Spider:


Kauai cave wolf spider:

What if intention has influence on the evolving of the body/plant. If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations. Who/what else should know what the problem is and if there is a problem and what to want to resolve it?

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection higher self (that what people call god...) both evolutiontheory and religion are right but incomplete.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.

reply to post by tamusan


"Scientists have identified heritable genetic changes among squirrels, birds and insects that appear to be evolved adaptations to a warmer world.

The team found that although tuatara have remained largely unchanged physically over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving — at a DNA level — faster than any other animal yet examined.

fence lizards in the southeastern United States are adapting to potentially fatal invasive fire-ant attacks

In a mere two decades, one of Charles Darwin's finch species, Geospiza fortis, reduced its beak size to better equip itself to consume small sized seeds, scientists report in the July 14 issue of the journal Science."


At the end of the day, none of these prove that one species can become another. The squirrels are still squirrels, the fence lizards are still fence lizards and the finch is still a finch.

Don't get me wrong, evolution is a very persuasive theory but until a missing link is found or a species is observed to change from one species to another then it hasn't been conclusively proven.

Micro evolution has been conclusively proved (adaptations within a species) but macro evolution (one species changing to another) hasn't been.

I would like to point out that I am not a creationist and have no religious beliefs at all.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by jd140

 

jd140, let's stick with THAT 'theory' for a while....

Of course, minor point.....'god' started everything, then just walked away, whistling all the while??

OK, I'm onboard with that....a 'creator' who initiated this whole mess 14-some billion years ago (by our standards), clucked and said "I done good!" and went away to meddle somewhere else.....who knows?

Well what he does with us after he created us is for a differant thread. I think this is a doable theory. Atleast it would get alot of people from ranting back and forth about something as stupid as how we got to be in this form.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

A 'Woolyphant'?!

Thanks, I needed a good chuckle.

I have two words for you.....Plate Tectonics

Our World, as we view it today, is just a 'snapshot' view....this planet, over the millions and billions of years, has undergone iincredible changes, as have the lifeforms that reside on the surface, and in the oceans.

We, scrappy, somewhat intelligent bipeds, are just beginning to become self-aware enough to realize that THIS planet isn't about US.....we are here by chance. Random chance. In a Universe as vast as we are now learning it to be, randomness isn't so hard to understand.

I love your post, well done!

The life we see here at this moment in time is a tiny fraction of the life that has exsisted on this planet and when you think about how much life is out there in the Multiverse you have to realize that we are something less then the self important "Gods chosen" that we make ourselves out to be.

To me thats the real foundation to this argument. Being social animals we just don't like anything that could cause us to reevaluate ourselves.

When we lose our decidedly provincial attitudes we might join the rest of creation in meaningful banter.

reply to post by gpzrd350


very good post, gpzrd....

Again, you've noted indications of what is now called 'micro-evolution'....I still call it 'Natural Selection', adaptations within a few generations.

'Macro-evolution' is NOT something we can directly observe....we, Humans, don't live long enough.

BTW....spiders give me the creeps!!!! Eeeek!

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK show me a FACT, just one FACT, not ALL, just ONE that is known about evolution.

Remember a FACT is VERIFIABLE.

Is this a setup too

I will take that challenge.

Ivory poachers in Africa have provided a perfect demonstration of how
evolution works. Poachers kill only those elephants that bear large,
valuable tusks. As a result they have allowed elephants with smaller tusks ,or those lacking tusks, to multiply.

A survey conducted in Uganda's Queen Elizabeth National Park found
that up to 30 percent of the elephants had no tusks, up from one
percent in the 1930s, and many of the rest had greatly reduced tusks.
The same trend is happening all over Africa, as a result of selective
culling by poachers.

Essentially, poachers are acting as one of the three pressures that lead to evolution. These three pressures are environmental, sexual, and in this case, predatory.

www.environmentalgraffiti.com...

I am pretty this example of evolution meets your requirements of being a "fact" and "verifiable." I can only hope you are man enough to admit when you are wrong.

i have to break my silence on this one you claim that evolution is just a theory well I am going to tell u this religion is just a theory and that evolution makes 10times more logic then religion, fyi there is no god i do not see how people can belive in a fairy tail

[edit on 2-3-2009 by semperfi221]

Now we are jumping into micro and macro-evolution. I will agree that macro-evolution has not been proven (until I research it further). I remember reading about a verifable mapping of the transistion from reptiles to mammals. If I can put together a case to prove this and the evidence convinces me, I will post it. Otherwise, I will concede that macro-evolution has not been proven.

This is fun for me to debate. My formal education is in wildlife biology, but I have never worked in the field. (Except for a few gigs as an animal keeper.) Currently, I teach English as a second language.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by bignick
Technological advancement is the evidence of evolution.

On the contrary.

We've been here millions of years (according to evolution), but scientists find no technological advancements until the last thousands of years?

Doesn't make sense.

Ummmmm.....agricultural revolution, industrial revolution, computer revolution......need I go on...

Of course evolution is fact. Multigenerational genetic mutations absolutely occur.

Ammunity to local fungi, parasites, bacteria is a perfect example. Skin, fur, scale and eye color are others.

To say that micro-evolution exists you must at least give credence to Macro-evolution. For example

Hypothetically, Let's take a small animal and follow its species for thousands of years. If micro-evolution is true and proven, would this not lead to a new species after thousands of years?

first 1000 years this animal lives in the sea, it has fins, and gils, we will call it a fish. Soon this fish is being out-swam by its predators. All the slow fish are eaten, leaving only the faster fish to breed. As a result the fish grows an inch longer and developes stronger muscles. Something we might consider micro-evolution..

Second 1000 years: Just as our fish has adapted so have it's predators. This time hiding is the only way to avoid the predators. Coincidentally the color of our fish species differs slightly, it ranges from a light blue to a light green. When the predators come to eat the fish hide in the green seaweeds. The more blue they are the easier they are to pick off. The greener fish move on to breed and produce more green offspring. After 2000 years we now have a fish that is 1 inch longer, swims faster, and is only green.

This is a small example of how over just 2000 years you can end up with something different than you started with by following micro-evolution alone. Macro-evolution is only the big picture, Micro is where the magic happens.