PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Remember, the first part of speciation is isolation!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
My attempt at an Evolution thread! OhgodwhatamIdoing.
- Thread starter Kinitari
- Start date
- Status
Kano on the Phone
Member
Aside from the obvious part where I tell you that no biologist worth anything thinks they know what the origin of life is, that at best it's a bunch of ideas, I want you to imagine you're on your bathroom break at work, and when you come back to your desk, a sandwich is sitting on top of it. Co-worker A explains that another co-worker had an extra sandwich and left it there for you. Co-worker B explains that a leprechaun dropped it off.Mustaphadamus said:
Do you sit there and wring your hands because you're not sure how it got there because both explanations require a certain amount of faith? No, you don't, because that would be fucking stupid.
Mustaphadamus said:
Well... I wouldn't say they are anywhere on the same level. True that the absolute beginnings of life are still shrouded in mystery, but because of the ToE (theory of evolution) and findings in the field of biochemistry, Abiogenesis is currently the best answer we have to how life came about to be on this planet.
Not to be crass, but that's a lot better than the completely unfounded claim of some sort of deity intervening, which beyond some philosophical waxing, has nothing substantiating it.
edit: I am now home from work, so will start some more updating to the OP.
They're completely separate issues with separate probabilities of happening.gohepcat said:
One can actually be science while one simply tries to use science to back up something completely and totally unsubstantiated and imo unlikely.
Annnddd....that's all I have to say about that.
astroturfing
Member
damn so much atheism here.. so sad
tell me this "scientists"
1. why do whales have no feet if they could walk a few thousand years ago??
2. the sun, we go around it but how does it know HOW to feed plants like it does with light particles and molecules?
3. if a monkey throws a ball into the air, and catches it with two "hands", how does it know it's a ball?
4. if apples didnt grow on trees and you made a table with apples on the table how would you find the missing link inside the apple?
tell me this "scientists"
1. why do whales have no feet if they could walk a few thousand years ago??
2. the sun, we go around it but how does it know HOW to feed plants like it does with light particles and molecules?
3. if a monkey throws a ball into the air, and catches it with two "hands", how does it know it's a ball?
4. if apples didnt grow on trees and you made a table with apples on the table how would you find the missing link inside the apple?
astroturfing
Member
Kinitari said:
it's hard to tell indeed.. so yea i'd like some answers.
Pandaman said:
Really? Why is that?
You mean that even though I believe the universe is billions of years old, that evolution exists, & science isn't the work of the devil, I am the same as a guy who believes the world and universe were created in seven 24 hour days and lived next to dinosaurs?
How very Puritanical of you.
And I'm the one that is close minded?:lol
... Alright.astroturfing said:
astroturfing said:
It wasn't a few thousand years ago, it was more like 50-55million years ago. Also, eventually if limbs become less and less useful (like feet for aquatic mammals), mutations that decrease the size of these limbs are not only harmless, they can be beneficial (reduced drag, makes it easier to chase down prey or to escape predators).
Simple as that.
Er, no - the sun doesn't do anything, photosynthesis (the process of turning sunlight into usable energy) is something that evolved in plants a very very very long time ago. If you want me to talk about the evolution of chlorophyll, I guess I can do that too.
You will have to clarify this.
You lost me at "If apples didn't grow on trees". What do you mean?
i apologize in advance if op or somebody else already addressed this question and i didn't read it but,
how did birds evolve from a land/sea creature? I think wings would be a bad mutation for a land animal. they didn't grow huge ass wings in one day. I think wings or nubs soon to be wings would be a bad mutation. and that creature would die and wouldn't pass on it's mutation.
how did birds evolve from a land/sea creature? I think wings would be a bad mutation for a land animal. they didn't grow huge ass wings in one day. I think wings or nubs soon to be wings would be a bad mutation. and that creature would die and wouldn't pass on it's mutation.
To your second part, no it doesn't. We have already manually formed RNA through processes like what would be in nature.JGS said:
To your first part, the issue is the God answer can be applied to anything, like it has in the past. The sun rising and setting? God. A flood happened? God. Someone died? God. Life started on our planet? God. See the problem?
The_Inquisitor
Member
The monkey question is a philosophical question referring to whether we are in contact with the external world. There is no definitive criterion that exists to prove that.
JonesFTW said:
Yay a good question!
Okay, so I don't know if you've heard - but it's pretty widely accepted now that birds are the modern day descendants of dinosaurs. First just looking at the skeletal structure, you can see the similarities.
Going beyond that, feathers came from specialized scales, they would be good for wicking away moisture and keeping warm - just thinking about it, you can probably see the similarities, and a lot of Dinosaurs we thought to be covered in just regular reptile scales have actually been improperly represented - the velociraptor for example probably looked more like this:
From there you got gliders, dinosaurs that glided - and I guess the rest is history.
Kinitari said:Yay a good question!
Okay, so I don't know if you've heard - but it's pretty widely accepted now that birds are the modern day descendants of dinosaurs. First just looking at the skeletal structure, you can see the similarities.
Going beyond that, feathers came from specialized scales, they would be good for wicking away moisture and keeping warm - just thinking about it, you can probably see the similarities, and a lot of Dinosaurs we thought to be covered in just regular reptile scales have actually been improperly represented - the velociraptor for example probably looked more like this:
From there you got gliders, dinosaurs that glided - and I guess the rest is history.
well made post! thank you!
How? Finding out RNA can be made naturally is an important piece of the abiogenesis puzzle.JGS said:
Sure, you can apply God to whatever you want. Just like it has been for thousands of years. And that is why simply answering God to a question is a bad idea. The God answer can and has been applied to almost anything.
yes you are, you share the creationist mindset that allows you to look away and prescribe god wherever you feel like it. That mindset is the problem, that mindset will always be the problem. It doesn't matter if you believe the earth is billions of years old, because you believe that out of personal convenience. when you want to shove your god in a gap, you still will.JGS said:
lets face it, you only believe those things because you can't think of an excuse for them in your god centric worldview and you'd rather not be made fun of, you don't believe it because you acknowledge any value in the scientific method. I dont care that creationists have the age of the earth wrong. Lord Kelvin had the age wrong too, his number was also laughably distant from the truth but can you guess why i dont hold Kelvin in the same light as a creationist, despite both of them being wrong? Do you honestly think the issue science has with creationism is that they got some numbers wrong?
how convienent, you managed to prove my point while i was making it.JGS said:
Kinitari said:
Just to contribute, there's an emerging idea that wings primarily evolved to assist in incline running. This can actually be observed in young birds that are unable to fly, and yet use their wings to accomplish vertical running to great success.
The video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e81J915TEXg&feature=related
...and the paper:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5605/402
JGS said:
no big deals. but i think the OP is going to go all richard dawkins on us and bring up the elephant in the room. but either way he/she did a great job explaining evolution!
"Coming Soon:"
"Common arguments against Evolution and how to refute them.
Something something Religion something something."
and hopefully you ate a slice of the humble pie. some people never get the appetite. im not anti-debate by any means but debating on the internet never works. if you are to debate do it in person. and do debate!
the cake is lie
the pie is not
speculawyer
Member
Evolution provides a natural explanation of how all the various plants and animals formed. It is an explanation that contradicts what is in religious texts. Yes, I know people like to paper-over the contradiction and say 'god may have used evolution' and blah blah blah. But that is nothing but rationalization . . . and it works for many people . . . perhaps most.Trojita said:
But if you are going to be really honest about it, evolution shows us that these holy books are filled with mythical stories created by desert people thousands of years ago. Either that, or god is a complete prankster who gives us a book with lies to us about how the world was created.
So the question I was answering was why some people don't accept evolution (thus, we'll ignore the people who reconcile the two). And the reason they don't is because that would mean their religion is a lie.
Do you read the Bible as if its some sort of holy scripture?JGS said:
If so, then yes, you're just the same. Actually, you're simply a half-ass Christian who's trying to sit on the fence, when there's no fence at all, but a gigantic ocean sitting in between the two belief systems.
Science and religion aren't reconcilable, to put it simply.
speculawyer
Member
That is a pretty harsh way to put it. But I agree with your final statement.Seanspeed said:
However, it seems that most people have found a way to reconcile the two. People are very good at deluding themselves. Or perhaps they just don't think about it. Or perhaps they don't really buy the religious view but they act like it because that is what everyone else does. Or perhaps they are hanging on just because of Pascal's wager. Who knows? But the majority of people are religious, so you can't call them all idiots.
And how about quorom sensing?Mario said:
I love how that guy "Willy105" in the other thread repeatedly said how much he "loves science" and that the holes in science were actually responsible for him becoming religious, even as he demonstrated his complete lack of understanding. It almost sounded like he had convinced even himself.
Why we don't have flying humans yet?
ʇsʇɥʍʇbuʇɔظɹqʇsɯןddsɥʇɟןusdɹdqʇsɯɹɥʇʎɹʇsɥppɹɔɹɟsɹʎɟspusɥʇɹɟןddspʌʌɹsʌɥsʍظɥʇ
ʇɟןsʇpdʍʇusɥɔɹuɯɥɥʇʇʎʌןʇusɹʎuɟɔusqɥʇuʌןqsןʇsɯʎɥʇʎʇןqqɹdɯʇuɟuɯɹɟɹpɹpuʍןɟsɹʌuɔpɥʇɟן
ןɹɯɹɟbuɥʇuɯɹɟbuɥʇɯsssubqbuqbqɥʇuʇןʌuʌןqʎɥʇɟʇpɹbɟןןʎʇbʌʎɥʇsʞuɥʇpɹɥʇsɥʇuuʎɹʌ
ʇɟןsʇpdʍʇusɥɔɹuɯɥɥʇʇʎʌןʇusɹʎuɟɔusqɥʇuʌןqsןʇsɯʎɥʇʎʇןqqɹdɯʇuɟuɯɹɟɹpɹpuʍןɟsɹʌuɔpɥʇɟן
ןɹɯɹɟbuɥʇuɯɹɟbuɥʇɯsssubqbuqbqɥʇuʇןʌuʌןqʎɥʇɟʇpɹbɟןןʎʇbʌʎɥʇsʞuɥʇpɹɥʇsɥʇuuʎɹʌ
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
speculawyer said:
If you are talking about the creation story in the old testament then I don't really see a problem. The creation story in Genesis was passed down orally before it was written down as a way to explain how the universe and life was created at the time. It was never meant to be taken literally. So were The Flood and Jonah and The Whale. I still don't see why evolution defrauds an existence of an afterlife since they are two different things altogether.
Seanspeed said:
Wow, you're full of hate.
Joseph Merrick
Member
need a google maps style zoom in version of this :O~Kinitari said:
Actually, new evidence might suggest that it's the reverse: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htmKinitari said:
Pretty complicated family! Either way it stands that birds and dinosaurs are very closely related.
JesseZao said:
My guess is that, overall, there is no environmental pressure which would favour such a development. Besides which we already use technologies which see us reap some of the benefits of flight (accessibility, travel, hunting etc), so mutations which actually moved us towards flight wouldn't generally be favoured in the future because they wouldn't provide a tangible improvement in "fitness".
Meesh
Member
Thank you Kinitari! Awesome OP, great thread.
I'm (re)writing a script (sci-fi) that deals with mutation, genetics, natural selection(if that's still the correct term) and happened upon some information while researching. I figured I'd just share it and maybe it'll interest you.
http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm
I was lead to believe that Junk DNA was...well I had no idea! lol But it had my attention, geneticists used to claim that 98% of our DNA was junk but now believe otherwise.
Basically, some genes found within "Junk DNA" have given reason to suspect they regulate cell growth (in some cases mutation) as well as other genes adjacent to themselves. It's quite interesting that so far it sounds as though Junk DNA indicates some of it may be responsible for evolution. So really it's not junk, we just don't understand it yet.
I'm (re)writing a script (sci-fi) that deals with mutation, genetics, natural selection(if that's still the correct term) and happened upon some information while researching. I figured I'd just share it and maybe it'll interest you.
http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm
I was lead to believe that Junk DNA was...well I had no idea! lol But it had my attention, geneticists used to claim that 98% of our DNA was junk but now believe otherwise.
Basically, some genes found within "Junk DNA" have given reason to suspect they regulate cell growth (in some cases mutation) as well as other genes adjacent to themselves. It's quite interesting that so far it sounds as though Junk DNA indicates some of it may be responsible for evolution. So really it's not junk, we just don't understand it yet.
Updated the OP with a few more things, religion seems like it will forever be brought into the discussion, so I guess rather than shying away from it, it's better to face it head on. If someone is religious and in disbelief of the validity of Evolution, please come and debate and discuss, we'll try to keep it civil.
Damn it Science! How am I supposed to keep up?
Socreges said:
Damn it Science! How am I supposed to keep up?
Meesh
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the reason for this thread would be well thought discussion, instead of pissing on each other. I mean, you can't expect not to have religion come into question with a thread like this, it's only natural.Kinitari said:
To be quite fair, I was hoping some Gaffers would point out scriptures that would contradict the belief of evolution. If I'm to learn more about it, I'd like to know where religion erred, and which ones if possible.
Edit: Seriously a discussion. No shitting on anyone, just comparing notes, that's all.
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
astroturfing said:
I have to read the thread from the beginning... maybe someone addressed this already.
There is vestigial evidence of whale origins...
Talk Origins said:
(Basilosaurus not pictured -- image below is a modern whale)
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
Also... I highly, highly, highly recommend potholer54's youtube channel for anyone with science questions. He covers most topics.
Highly recommended.
Sample video
Highly recommended.
Sample video
- Status