Creation vs Evolution

Started by Emperor Ashtar221 pages

Originally posted by Alliance
No, ultimately its decided by the selection pressures dictated by the environment. Thats not random at all, its contextual.

Agree'd, it seems predisposed, but anyway your right.

Originally posted by Alliance

Yeah, right. I was talking about artifical selections...and linked traits can be selected for together, but in artifical selection, one can override species survival. natural selection will try to balance.

That's the thing, why is it considered artificial for humans breeders to select traits? Are we not a product of Natural Selection like some other animals?

Originally posted by Alliance
ARE YOU KIDDING?

Natural selection operates wholistically on any trait that influences an animals fitness. It is not random AT ALL.

Artificial selection acts on arbitrary, usually physical characteristics selected by man without any knowledge of what other traits are incidentally being selected for.

Bottleneck my man = randomness... Does that count as natural selection though? Or is that entirely seperate?

A good example of artificial selection: The Heike Crab

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That's the thing, why is it considered artificial for humans breeders to select traits? Are we not a product of Natural Selection like some other animals?

Because, especially in modern times, we don't use the same mechanisms and we generally don't select wholistically. Genetic engineering, industrialized selection...such things are not natural processes, despite the fact that one of nature's children are doing it.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Bottleneck my man = randomness... Does that count as natural selection though? Or is that entirely seperate?

It depends. A bottle neck is where the definition of fittest changes so rapidly that many speices can't adapt.

Take the Black Plague...the gene that gave people immunity was probably not a real essential characteristic, but it became one. Thus, those who had it reproduce. Random people may have it, but the process of seleciton is not random.

If we look at a severe drought...its kind of random, but individal factors still influence how long you can survive...metabolism, heat tolerance, perspiration, cooling behaviors...etc.

If we look at a meteor impact...likely its pretty damn random.
But there is still a threashold.

The more physical and the more extreme a bottleneck is...the more random it gets.

But its not necessarily always random...If i go whack everyone over the head with a baseball bat...its likely that someones skull is a little bit thicker and that might give them an edge. 😂

Look. Ymir = whob. Whob is pro-ID, but he hates Christianity because we Christians are too humanistic or something.

Yeah...i gathered...because Whob=annoy the hell out of me.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Look. Ymir = whob. Whob is pro-ID, but he hates Christianity because we Christians are too humanistic or something.

It's a possibility, but on the whole he portray's contrary beliefs to whob

...and whob has not learned how to sock well?

Well, he keeps getting banned, so I'd say "yes."

Who is this whob person? he/she's been mentioned in a few other threads

A cockle stew.

Whob hates Christians, yet he would slightly use Christian values to back up his hatred against Homosexuals as well....

Well this whob sounds like a lovely chap. Lets give him a nice smack in the gob! 😄

It's for sure no argument that 2 kinds of base pairs were all too easy, but it seems a little unlikely. Well, that's of course only my view of the things.

But one cannot deny that evolution happens. What creationists call "micro-"evolution has been observated in laboratories and fits absolutely perfect to the discoveries of DNA and its effects.
If one denies that that kind of evolution happens, he may just as well deny that DNA exists and that would make him dismissed for discussion.

But whoever argues that way didn't understand that there is no difference between "micro-" and "macro-"evolution, except for the period of time in which it occured. Of course apes didn't jump out of the trees and were men, and of course fishes didn't swim to the shore and just grew legs. This took a lot of time and many, many variations, which eventually leaded to the results. That's so easy to understand.. O.o

Hmhm..

Originally posted by eezy45
It's for sure no argument that 2 kinds of base pairs were all too easy, but it seems a little unlikely. Well, that's of course only my view of the things.

But one cannot deny that evolution happens. What creationists call "micro-"evolution has been observated in laboratories and fits absolutely perfect to the discoveries of DNA and its effects.
If one denies that that kind of evolution happens, he may just as well deny that DNA exists and that would make him dismissed for discussion.

But whoever argues that way didn't understand that there is no difference between "micro-" and "macro-"evolution, except for the period of time in which it occured. Of course apes didn't jump out of the trees and were men, and of course fishes didn't swim to the shore and just grew legs. This took a lot of time and many, many variations, which eventually leaded to the results. That's so easy to understand.. O.o

Hmhm..

Wow...someone's whose book on evolution has been updated since the 60's

Does that mean you realize that most are teaching old material?

I'm pretty sure that most people in this thread (save for JIA) have had updated textbooks.

My high school one still talked about the difference between macro and micro evolution in its old definitions. I know a lot of people that had the same as well. They were published late, but the information was old. How many times have people come on not understanding evolution? It hurts.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm pretty sure that most people in this thread (save for JIA) have had updated textbooks.

See what I mean? You are obsessed with mentioning me in you posts (when 99.9% of your posts have nothing at all to do with me).

😄

Originally posted by Nellinator
My high school one still talked about the difference between macro and micro evolution in its old definitions. I know a lot of people that had the same as well. They were published late, but the information was old. How many times have people come on not understanding evolution? It hurts.

Quoted directly from talkorigins.com:
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

It is arguable, however, that some forms of macroevolution are reducible to microevolution (as discussed in the article).