Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
Froggy618157725
Level 31
Froggy618157725's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,012
Subtract from Froggy618157725's ReputationAdd to Froggy618157725's Reputation Froggy618157725 is a novice
Send a message via AIM to Froggy618157725 Send a message via MSN to Froggy618157725 Send a message via Yahoo to Froggy618157725
#21
02-07-2006
Default

Pwned... I mean, seriously, saying something like that? cthulu4769, could you please, using your obviously superior intellect, explain exactly why evolution doesn't occur?

Now, as for the where the single celled organsim originally came from, I have read about experiments done in an attempt to recreate early Earth environments. Some of them ended up producing organic compounds (not living things, but things common in life). Some of the naturally occuring molecules, with hydorphilic and hydrophobic ends, form bubbles, similar to a cell membrane. Of course, there is no life present there, but a basic skeleton is set up. Here's Wikipedia's article on it. There are several places where errors may've been made, but it's always good to remain open to an idea.
I also recommend Wikipedia's page on evolution. It tells several common misconceptions, like that of differences between "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution"
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

Thanks to Shystie for avatar
CraftierPantz
Level 29
CraftierPantz's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,691
Subtract from CraftierPantz's ReputationAdd to CraftierPantz's Reputation CraftierPantz is on the rise to fame CraftierPantz is on the rise to fame
#22
02-07-2006
Default

no achilles, im talking about the transitional forms of like fossils, the in between stages, say for example, of a ape and a human, where are the hapes?



ekattan
Level 37
ekattan's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,640
Subtract from ekattan's ReputationAdd to ekattan's Reputation ekattan is stuck in campaign mode
Send a message via MSN to ekattan
#23
02-08-2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkedAchilles
Example of macro-evolution.

Development of wings in bees. At first they were small and developed as a method of thermoregulation. Then as selection for larger bees came larger wings. As the wings became large enough for flight, that is what they were used for

http://www.ulg.ac.be/morfonct/mem/rui/abstract018.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.dino.html
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO4...po&Mode.2.HTML
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macr.html

So here are some examples for you. The only people that say there is not evidence for macro-evolution are just out to tear down evolution and not looking at the evidence itself.

Seriously who has told you that there is no evidence for macro-evolution? Those theories have been DEVELOPED from observations in science. Not created and hunted for evidence supporting it. That is not how it works. Someone is filling your head with nonsense.
If I cut a lizards tail off it will grow back, is that evolution? So a bees wing gew larger, wow! That does it for me.

Listen people are not bess or catfish for that matter and we did not just grow taller. Darwing clearly stated that we derived from apes, now thats a huge fucking leap, and his only explanation is time.

Scientists try to prove this with discovered homind bones which are not complere or don't even prove anything. There is no way of linking us to them.

Evolution is just a theory but it is accepted as a fact
Just like religion! All taken on faith. "We have to believe them because it's the scientists who say that and it's in our science books."

There is no conclusive evidence Just comparisons we have observed on species that don't even resemble us.

Do you actually think it's possible man's so complex genetic material actually derived from a singled celled organism? How? You can't prove it, only through experimental comparisons on fruit flies?


Last edited by ekattan; 02-08-2006 at 10:10 AM.
Rebal771
1 of the original 10,656
Rebal771's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Liverpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 3,256
Subtract from Rebal771's ReputationAdd to Rebal771's Reputation Rebal771 is a n00b
#24
02-08-2006
Default

Evolution has been proven true on many accounts.

Evolution...ESPECIALLY ADAPTATION is a proven fact. That's how you get so many different kinds of humans, birds, dogs.......it's based on their environment.

While you can not deny all of evolution...and all of it's theories...you CAN deny the ones that link it to a "big bang theory" and such.

As he stated..."linear evolution" has been long proven wrong and is no longer accepted as part of the theory (although many christian fundamentalists still make evolutionists defend that argument...or at least say that it is still part of the doctrine.)

The point is...evolution is entirely possible. In fact...why not? Let's throw God in the mix...just to stir some trouble.

If God is going to create the earth...and give it a date where he will destroy it all.........what's going to happen in the mean time? Is everything just going to be stagnant and remain the same from the day he created it to the day he ends it?

Not likely...especially with free thought.

The part that might confuse you guys is that humans are the only ones to violate evolution. The only ones to DIRECTLY conflict with it. You tell me another species who made their environment adapt to their living style rather than adapting to their environment.

Rambling shall come to a halt.

THANKS SOLID................................& STORMS!!!

Not mentioned in sig: <3 Lammie
mat62
Level 25
mat62's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Newcastle, Aust.
Posts: 810
Subtract from mat62's ReputationAdd to mat62's Reputation mat62 is a novice
#25
02-08-2006
Default

To a person who has never really delved too deeply into the scientific world - i.e. me, Darwinism just seems to make sense.

As I see it, bacterial life sprouted from something or other (who really knows what) a few billion years ago and has slowly developed into the multitude of species that exist on our planet now.

Aren't chimpanzees DNA 98% identical to humans DNA. Thus, the supposed 'giant' evolutionary leap must be at least plausible under the theory of evolution. (even though evolution is not linear, as you've been saying Achilles).

Until another theory comes along with a vast amount of research and evidence backing it up, or a new piece of evidence comes about to blow darwinism out of the water, Darwin's theory of evolution seems to explain the topic best.
I'm back in Aus! (Miss Whistler though)

gt = The dumdum
Rebal771
1 of the original 10,656
Rebal771's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Liverpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 3,256
Subtract from Rebal771's ReputationAdd to Rebal771's Reputation Rebal771 is a n00b
#26
02-08-2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mat62
To a person who has never really delved too deeply into the scientific world - i.e. me, Darwinism just seems to make sense.

As I see it, bacterial life sprouted from something or other (who really knows what) a few billion years ago and has slowly developed into the multitude of species that exist on our planet now.

Aren't chimpanzees DNA 98% identical to humans DNA. Thus, the supposed 'giant' evolutionary leap must be at least plausible under the theory of evolution. (even though evolution is not linear, as you've been saying Achilles).

Until another theory comes along with a vast amount of research and evidence backing it up, or a new piece of evidence comes about to blow darwinism out of the water, Darwin's theory of evolution seems to explain the topic best.
I'm pretty sure that Darwin denied a few of his own theories, and the evolutionary part you're talking about was one of them...I believe. I haven't seen that stuff in ages...considering I was like 14-15 when I saw it...but what you're talking about is considered linear evolution.

Crossing the line from one species to another.

I could be wrong...cause that information was from a WHILE ago...so don't hold me fully accountable. But don't come in here saying I'm full of shit unless you've got documented proof of what you're talking about...cause I've seen it before, just not in a while.

I know what I'm talking about...just not everything about it...lol.
I got nothin...

THANKS SOLID................................& STORMS!!!

Not mentioned in sig: <3 Lammie
mat62
Level 25
mat62's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Newcastle, Aust.
Posts: 810
Subtract from mat62's ReputationAdd to mat62's Reputation mat62 is a novice
#27
02-08-2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebal771
I'm pretty sure that Darwin denied a few of his own theories, and the evolutionary part you're talking about was one of them...I believe. I haven't seen that stuff in ages...considering I was like 14-15 when I saw it...but what you're talking about is considered linear evolution.

Crossing the line from one species to another.

I could be wrong...cause that information was from a WHILE ago...so don't hold me fully accountable. But don't come in here saying I'm full of shit unless you've got documented proof of what you're talking about...cause I've seen it before, just not in a while.

I know what I'm talking about...just not everything about it...lol.
I got nothin...
sometimes.....and then.....but maybe.....wait...what

that was pretty funny

I'm the same man,... I don't really know what i'm talking about. Its from school when I was 15 or 16 and various documentaries??

I'll leave it to achilles
I'm back in Aus! (Miss Whistler though)

gt = The dumdum
MarkedAchilles
MarkedAchilles's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 8,298
Subtract from MarkedAchilles's ReputationAdd to MarkedAchilles's Reputation MarkedAchilles is a novice
#28
02-08-2006
Default

Ok. E-dog. You are hung up on darwin. It is not just him. He was the first person to publish the theory. Every study since then in every form of biology puts more evidence towards that theory.

If you do not want to look at 100's of years of experiments and evidence and come to your own conclusions that is fine. But don't just let people tell you that it is wrong because of this and that. Look at the research yourself. Not webpages full of people trying to tear it apart because of religious zealots don't like what it says.

If you are uncomfortable with being 99% genetically identical to apes that is fine. You can be uncomfortable. If you really don't want to look at the MILLIONS of examples of transitional species. That is fine. You can ignore every piece of hard core evidence you want. That is fine. But just because you do not want to take the years it takes to study all of it and to even try to understand how it works you don't need to get all worked up about the facts.

So what we cannot recreate millions of years in a test tube for you, I am really sorry. Is that what it takes for you to accept something? Isn't 100's of years millions of examples you yourself can go touch, look at and put together how you want enough? I don't care if you accept the theory at true or not but don't diss it just because you don't want to take the time to research it. Copying and pasting things from other pages is not doing research or even trying to learn.

I have only listed a few examples. Showing you that it does happen. Examples that are easy to understand. There are millions of pieces of evidence, not from anything Darwin did. He got a lot wrong. But he got one thing right and that is what we remember him for.

Either way you are just going on rants from what other people have told you. I am talking about what people have shown me and you can look at too. Look at the physical evidence not what people just tell you. If you come to any other conclusion other than Natural Selection is what has been and still is going on, tell me. State your reasons from the evidence at hand, your conclusions from the evidence at hand and why every scientist in the world for the last 100 years is off their rocker in thinking that Natural Selection is crazy talk.


-i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section


Think You Watch Movies? http://www.halo3forum.com/showthread.php?t=81621

Last edited by MarkedAchilles; 02-08-2006 at 10:31 AM.
MarkedAchilles
MarkedAchilles's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 8,298
Subtract from MarkedAchilles's ReputationAdd to MarkedAchilles's Reputation MarkedAchilles is a novice
#29
02-08-2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraftierPantz
no achilles, im talking about the transitional forms of like fossils, the in between stages, say for example, of a ape and a human, where are the hapes?

There is not transitional form inbetween apes and humans. It is not a ape - hape- human lineage.

Think of it like a V with apes and humans at the tops of the V and something else, not living anymore at the bottom of the V. It doesn't even have to look like an ape or a human.

These transitional forms have been found all over. If you want examples read the previous posts. Or you can just type it in to google if you want pictures. Just remember it isn't just animals. Plants and microorganisms have transitional species as well. There is a whole kindom of microorganisms that went extince in the transitions between prokayotes and eukaryotes. That's millions of species just there.


-i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section


Think You Watch Movies? http://www.halo3forum.com/showthread.php?t=81621
MarkedAchilles
MarkedAchilles's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 8,298
Subtract from MarkedAchilles's ReputationAdd to MarkedAchilles's Reputation MarkedAchilles is a novice
#30
02-08-2006
Default

1. Really everyone needs to stop thinking of Darwin. Guess what. We know a lot more now than we did yesterday. We will know more tommorow. The theory of evolution does not start and stop with darwin. It was first proposed from evidence he collected and then every scientist in the world looked at that evidence and every piece of evidence since. Same stuff.

2. The Big-Bang thing, wich has been adressed in another thread where I posted to a link in Science with evidence supporting has NOTHING to do with Evolution. Nor does it have anything to do with the start of life. It deals with how life changes from "simple" organisms to "complex" organisms in response to enviromnetal changes. This can go the other way as well. Attributes can be lost in an organism over time. It is a two way street. It is all stuff you guys can look at yourself and come to whatever conclusion you want. Just the rest of us in the field have already come to one.


-i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section


Think You Watch Movies? http://www.halo3forum.com/showthread.php?t=81621
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off