A rather hilarious "debate" between Intelligent Design and Evolution

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

So basically' date=' I have no right whatsoever to believe in something that scientists deem illogical. I must instead abide by all that is within reason and wait on my death bed as I grow old. That about right?

[/quote']

 

Go ahead and believe what you want. Just don't try and prove it scientifically or try and disprove something solely on the basis of your beliefs. Oh, and thanks everyone for covering that post.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

So basically' date=' I have no right whatsoever to believe in something that scientists deem illogical. I must instead abide by all that is within reason and wait on my death bed as I grow old. That about right?

[/quote']

 

Go ahead and believe what you want. Just don't try and prove it scientifically or try and disprove something solely on the basis of your beliefs. Oh, and thanks everyone for covering that post.

[T. Sankara]

So basically' date=' I have no right whatsoever to believe in something that scientists deem illogical. I must instead abide by all that is within reason and wait on my death bed as I grow old. That about right?

[/quote']

 

You can believe whatever you bloody well like. Just keep your stupidities out of public schools.

 

So if I believe in something else, it's stupid?

 

I don't have a problem with scientific studies. I study it my damn self to better my education. But I don't understand your logic here.

[CrabHelmet]

So basically' date=' I have no right whatsoever to believe in something that scientists deem illogical. I must instead abide by all that is within reason and wait on my death bed as I grow old. That about right?

[/quote']

 

You can believe whatever you bloody well like. Just keep your stupidities out of public schools.

 

So if I believe in something else, it's stupid?

 

I don't have a problem with scientific studies. I study it my damn self to better my education. But I don't understand your logic here.

 

Re-reading my previous false, the way I phrased it meant something entirely different to what I actually meant. The stupidity is placing intelligent design into education, making decisions like cutting funding to scientific research purely because one prefers to go with "God did it", and so on. In other words, when intelligent design is kept out of the public educational system and isn't hurting anyone, it ceases to be a stupidity, and for all I care you can believe whatever you like; however, when it purports to be scientific and is taught in state-run schools and does get in the way of science, a problem exists.

[T. Sankara]

So basically' date=' I have no right whatsoever to believe in something that scientists deem illogical. I must instead abide by all that is within reason and wait on my death bed as I grow old. That about right?

[/quote']

 

You can believe whatever you bloody well like. Just keep your stupidities out of public schools.

 

So if I believe in something else, it's stupid?

 

I don't have a problem with scientific studies. I study it my damn self to better my education. But I don't understand your logic here.

 

Re-reading my previous false, the way I phrased it meant something entirely different to what I actually meant. The stupidity is placing intelligent design into education, making decisions like cutting funding to scientific research purely because one prefers to go with "God did it", and so on. In other words, when intelligent design is kept out of the public educational system and isn't hurting anyone, it ceases to be a stupidity, and for all I care you can believe whatever you like; however, when it purports to be scientific and is taught in state-run schools and does get in the way of science, a problem exists.

 

My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

I do agree, with parts of this. Religion should be left at home or in private. School is a different story. But isn't that a law some places? No religion in school?

[CrabHelmet]

So basically' date=' I have no right whatsoever to believe in something that scientists deem illogical. I must instead abide by all that is within reason and wait on my death bed as I grow old. That about right?

[/quote']

 

You can believe whatever you bloody well like. Just keep your stupidities out of public schools.

 

So if I believe in something else, it's stupid?

 

I don't have a problem with scientific studies. I study it my damn self to better my education. But I don't understand your logic here.

 

Re-reading my previous false, the way I phrased it meant something entirely different to what I actually meant. The stupidity is placing intelligent design into education, making decisions like cutting funding to scientific research purely because one prefers to go with "God did it", and so on. In other words, when intelligent design is kept out of the public educational system and isn't hurting anyone, it ceases to be a stupidity, and for all I care you can believe whatever you like; however, when it purports to be scientific and is taught in state-run schools and does get in the way of science, a problem exists.

 

My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

No, it was my mistake. You interpreted what I actually said perfectly; I just said the wrong thing.

 

I do agree' date=' with parts of this. Religion should be left at home or in private. School is a different story. But isn't that a law some places? No religion in school?

[/quote']

 

Laws vary from place to place. In the United States, there's a bizarre system of what can and cannot be done based on the opposing Establishment Clause and Free Practice Clause and composed of several sometimes-contradictory court rulings.

[Supernova513]

There is no set in stone evidence for the existence of a God' date=' or for Intelligent Design. On the other hand, there is DEFINITE evidence for evolution. Evolution is almost certainly correct, and even though there is a minimal chance it isn't, it is far more credible than Intelligent Design or the theory of a Divine Being governing our lives.

[/quote']

 

 

How is it more credible? As for the evidence that makes evolution so indisputable, let's review this shall we?

 

Evolutionists claim that evolution occurs because organisms need to adapt and survive therefore they must evolve or die. This makes sense as anyone can see that organisms do indeed adapt to their surroundings such as rabbits changing their fur color, cats and dogs shedding hair, etc. These are both indeed adaptions, but they DO NOT result in the organism changing its genetic makeup as these are ACQUIRED TRAITS which CANNOT be passed on. This rules out the argument that new species emerge through passing on adapted traits. Secondly, evolutionists state that evolution is made possible through genetic mutations. Genetic mutations do occur, and are responsible in altered traits observed in many organisms, including humans. Nevertheless, mutations DO NOT add new information, they only delete or scramble existing information. Moreover, mutations can either be good, bad or neutral. Most of the time they are neutral and even unnoticeable to the naked eye. If they aren't neutral, then they are most likely to be a debilitating mutation that results in an organism having two heads, extra limbs, etc. For example, only birds have the genetic capacity to grow feathers. No matter how many mutations a cat undergoes, it cannot and will not ever grow feathers. Similarly, a reptile cannot and will not ever grow fur. No matter how much they need to adapt and survive, they will always be cold-blooded with scales.

 

You clearly understand nothing about the processes we're speaking of. This is what makes this religious fundamentalist s*** so stupid. You don't truly understand the process at work.

 

Adaptation occurs through allele variation. Different alleles lead to different traits: The color of an animal's fur, for example. I'm sure you learned how heredity works in Bio 101. Offspring with a more useful fur-coloration are MORE LIKELY to survive. Thus they reproduce and in turn are MORE LIKELY to produce offspring with their own fur color.

 

Of course, these alleles have to come from somewhere. Generally they come from genetic recombination and mutation (within a sex cell, of course. Other mutation are not heritable.).

 

It's not that hard. Variation is driven through a set of processes. Successful variation increases, not guarantees, the chances of greater success and reproduction. Likewise unsuccessful variation only increases the chance of less successful organisms. Evolution is all about the trends, not the specifics. Over an extensive period of time, less successful variations tend to fade away.

 

Futhermore, many IDers and Creationists tend to confuse the dispute over mutation's role in modern human variation and its role in evolution as a process. Mutation drives simpler organisms (bacteria, other once-celled organisms, and viruses though they aren't truly alive) at a stunning speed. These organism don't have anything to do with genetic recombination, etc. They do, of course, swap DNA in a separate process.

 

The point I'm making is this: evolution can't be pinned down on one single process. A few different factors account for it, but ultimately it just comes down to Natural Selection. It's not really a disputable phenomena. It's a bit like denying that your car turns on in the morning when you twist the key in the ignition.

 

By the way, birds are not the only animals with a capacity to grow feathers. In fact, the coding for it is in many species: humans included. There's just another piece of coding, or multiple, in there somewhere that turns it off, rendering it "junk DNA." A convenient mutation could, theoretically make other animals grow feathers. That being said, the coding is likely useless at this point BECAUSE with the gene turned off, natural selection could not eliminate harmful changes.

 

Thanks for the explanation but what you described is the change in frequency of certain traits within a population and that (in cliche terms) "survival of the fittest" is what drives organisms to change. It's basically just saying that over time an animal with a white fur coat will survive longer in a snowy environment rather than one with a brown fur coat therefore making white-furred rabbits more common in that particular environment. This is true, but this DOES NOT account for the claim that species can "evolve" into another such as apes into humans or even prokaryotes into eukaryotes. Explain how organisms gain the capacity to "inter-evolve" between species? Also, why don't humans change? We adapt to our surroundings by changing them. We don't grow feathers or grow fur or extra limbs, we build houses and design cars and establish power selections. These are just some honest questions.

 

(And btw, just because someone is skeptical of of evolution or scientific claims doesn't make them a fundamentalist. The entire scientific method is based upon asking questions and being skeptical.)

[CrabHelmet]

What the scientific method is not based on is ignoring all previous research and theories by setting up absurd straw men.

 

DERP DERP I CAN'T GROW FEATHERS IF I WANT TO FLY SO EVOLUTION IS A LIE SPREAD BY LIARS WHO HATE GOD

[Supernova513]

What the scientific method is not based on is ignoring all previous research and theories by setting up absurd straw men.

 

DERP DERP I CAN'T GROW FEATHERS IF I WANT TO FLY SO EVOLUTION IS A LIE SPREAD BY LIARS WHO HATE GOD

 

Can you actually post something that answers my questions other than making ignorant and pointless remarks? I never once mentioned God or anything of the sort. I'm just asking questions so that I can be better informed.

[Willieh]

There is no set in stone evidence for the existence of a God' date=' or for Intelligent Design. On the other hand, there is DEFINITE evidence for evolution. Evolution is almost certainly correct, and even though there is a minimal chance it isn't, it is far more credible than Intelligent Design or the theory of a Divine Being governing our lives.

[/quote']

 

 

How is it more credible? As for the evidence that makes evolution so indisputable, let's review this shall we?

 

Evolutionists claim that evolution occurs because organisms need to adapt and survive therefore they must evolve or die. This makes sense as anyone can see that organisms do indeed adapt to their surroundings such as rabbits changing their fur color, cats and dogs shedding hair, etc. These are both indeed adaptions, but they DO NOT result in the organism changing its genetic makeup as these are ACQUIRED TRAITS which CANNOT be passed on. This rules out the argument that new species emerge through passing on adapted traits. Secondly, evolutionists state that evolution is made possible through genetic mutations. Genetic mutations do occur, and are responsible in altered traits observed in many organisms, including humans. Nevertheless, mutations DO NOT add new information, they only delete or scramble existing information. Moreover, mutations can either be good, bad or neutral. Most of the time they are neutral and even unnoticeable to the naked eye. If they aren't neutral, then they are most likely to be a debilitating mutation that results in an organism having two heads, extra limbs, etc. For example, only birds have the genetic capacity to grow feathers. No matter how many mutations a cat undergoes, it cannot and will not ever grow feathers. Similarly, a reptile cannot and will not ever grow fur. No matter how much they need to adapt and survive, they will always be cold-blooded with scales.

 

You clearly understand nothing about the processes we're speaking of. This is what makes this religious fundamentalist s*** so stupid. You don't truly understand the process at work.

 

Adaptation occurs through allele variation. Different alleles lead to different traits: The color of an animal's fur, for example. I'm sure you learned how heredity works in Bio 101. Offspring with a more useful fur-coloration are MORE LIKELY to survive. Thus they reproduce and in turn are MORE LIKELY to produce offspring with their own fur color.

 

Of course, these alleles have to come from somewhere. Generally they come from genetic recombination and mutation (within a sex cell, of course. Other mutation are not heritable.).

 

It's not that hard. Variation is driven through a set of processes. Successful variation increases, not guarantees, the chances of greater success and reproduction. Likewise unsuccessful variation only increases the chance of less successful organisms. Evolution is all about the trends, not the specifics. Over an extensive period of time, less successful variations tend to fade away.

 

Futhermore, many IDers and Creationists tend to confuse the dispute over mutation's role in modern human variation and its role in evolution as a process. Mutation drives simpler organisms (bacteria, other once-celled organisms, and viruses though they aren't truly alive) at a stunning speed. These organism don't have anything to do with genetic recombination, etc. They do, of course, swap DNA in a separate process.

 

The point I'm making is this: evolution can't be pinned down on one single process. A few different factors account for it, but ultimately it just comes down to Natural Selection. It's not really a disputable phenomena. It's a bit like denying that your car turns on in the morning when you twist the key in the ignition.

 

By the way, birds are not the only animals with a capacity to grow feathers. In fact, the coding for it is in many species: humans included. There's just another piece of coding, or multiple, in there somewhere that turns it off, rendering it "junk DNA." A convenient mutation could, theoretically make other animals grow feathers. That being said, the coding is likely useless at this point BECAUSE with the gene turned off, natural selection could not eliminate harmful changes.

 

Thanks for the explanation but what you described is the change in frequency of certain traits within a population and that (in cliche terms) "survival of the fittest" is what drives organisms to change. It's basically just saying that over time an animal with a white fur coat will survive longer in a snowy environment rather than one with a brown fur coat therefore making white-furred rabbits more common in that particular environment. This is true, but this DOES NOT account for the claim that species can "evolve" into another such as apes into humans or even prokaryotes into eukaryotes. Explain how organisms gain the capacity to "inter-evolve" between species? Also, why don't humans change? We adapt to our surroundings by changing them. We don't grow feathers or grow fur or extra limbs, we build houses and design cars and establish power selections. These are just some honest questions.

 

(And btw, just because someone is skeptical of of evolution or scientific claims doesn't make them a fundamentalist. The entire scientific method is based upon asking questions and being skeptical.)

 

Um... Like most evangelical science-bashers, you've failed to understand evolution. The term "Evolution" doesn't refer to creatures "species-jumping." You've taken microvolution and macroevolution and spliced them into some kind of retarded theory that claims that over the course of a night, a monkey turns into a person. Evolution IS survival of the fittest. Things EVOLVE to better suit their environment. And to confront your question, "Why don't humans evolve?" We do. The human you see today didn't just become. It evolved from humans before it's time.

 

To simplify: Evolution=/=monkey to man.

 

tl;dr: Refer to crab's post.

[The Dark One]

There is no set in stone evidence for the existence of a God' date=' or for Intelligent Design. On the other hand, there is DEFINITE evidence for evolution. Evolution is almost certainly correct, and even though there is a minimal chance it isn't, it is far more credible than Intelligent Design or the theory of a Divine Being governing our lives.

[/quote']

 

 

How is it more credible? As for the evidence that makes evolution so indisputable, let's review this shall we?

 

Evolutionists claim that evolution occurs because organisms need to adapt and survive therefore they must evolve or die. This makes sense as anyone can see that organisms do indeed adapt to their surroundings such as rabbits changing their fur color, cats and dogs shedding hair, etc. These are both indeed adaptions, but they DO NOT result in the organism changing its genetic makeup as these are ACQUIRED TRAITS which CANNOT be passed on. This rules out the argument that new species emerge through passing on adapted traits. Secondly, evolutionists state that evolution is made possible through genetic mutations. Genetic mutations do occur, and are responsible in altered traits observed in many organisms, including humans. Nevertheless, mutations DO NOT add new information, they only delete or scramble existing information. Moreover, mutations can either be good, bad or neutral. Most of the time they are neutral and even unnoticeable to the naked eye. If they aren't neutral, then they are most likely to be a debilitating mutation that results in an organism having two heads, extra limbs, etc. For example, only birds have the genetic capacity to grow feathers. No matter how many mutations a cat undergoes, it cannot and will not ever grow feathers. Similarly, a reptile cannot and will not ever grow fur. No matter how much they need to adapt and survive, they will always be cold-blooded with scales.

 

You clearly understand nothing about the processes we're speaking of. This is what makes this religious fundamentalist s*** so stupid. You don't truly understand the process at work.

 

Adaptation occurs through allele variation. Different alleles lead to different traits: The color of an animal's fur, for example. I'm sure you learned how heredity works in Bio 101. Offspring with a more useful fur-coloration are MORE LIKELY to survive. Thus they reproduce and in turn are MORE LIKELY to produce offspring with their own fur color.

 

Of course, these alleles have to come from somewhere. Generally they come from genetic recombination and mutation (within a sex cell, of course. Other mutation are not heritable.).

 

It's not that hard. Variation is driven through a set of processes. Successful variation increases, not guarantees, the chances of greater success and reproduction. Likewise unsuccessful variation only increases the chance of less successful organisms. Evolution is all about the trends, not the specifics. Over an extensive period of time, less successful variations tend to fade away.

 

Futhermore, many IDers and Creationists tend to confuse the dispute over mutation's role in modern human variation and its role in evolution as a process. Mutation drives simpler organisms (bacteria, other once-celled organisms, and viruses though they aren't truly alive) at a stunning speed. These organism don't have anything to do with genetic recombination, etc. They do, of course, swap DNA in a separate process.

 

The point I'm making is this: evolution can't be pinned down on one single process. A few different factors account for it, but ultimately it just comes down to Natural Selection. It's not really a disputable phenomena. It's a bit like denying that your car turns on in the morning when you twist the key in the ignition.

 

By the way, birds are not the only animals with a capacity to grow feathers. In fact, the coding for it is in many species: humans included. There's just another piece of coding, or multiple, in there somewhere that turns it off, rendering it "junk DNA." A convenient mutation could, theoretically make other animals grow feathers. That being said, the coding is likely useless at this point BECAUSE with the gene turned off, natural selection could not eliminate harmful changes.

 

Thanks for the explanation but what you described is the change in frequency of certain traits within a population and that (in cliche terms) "survival of the fittest" is what drives organisms to change. It's basically just saying that over time an animal with a white fur coat will survive longer in a snowy environment rather than one with a brown fur coat therefore making white-furred rabbits more common in that particular environment. This is true, but this DOES NOT account for the claim that species can "evolve" into another such as apes into humans or even prokaryotes into eukaryotes. Explain how organisms gain the capacity to "inter-evolve" between species? Also, why don't humans change? We adapt to our surroundings by changing them. We don't grow feathers or grow fur or extra limbs, we build houses and design cars and establish power selections. These are just some honest questions.

 

(And btw, just because someone is skeptical of of evolution or scientific claims doesn't make them a fundamentalist. The entire scientific method is based upon asking questions and being skeptical.)

 

Um... Like most evangelical science-bashers, you've failed to understand evolution. The term "Evolution" doesn't refer to creatures "species-jumping." You've taken microvolution and macroevolution and spliced them into some kind of retarded theory that claims that over the course of a night, a monkey turns into a person. Evolution IS survival of the fittest. Things EVOLVE to better suit their environment. And to confront your question, "Why don't humans evolve?" We do. The human you see today didn't just become. It evolved from humans before it's time.

 

To simplify: Evolution=/=monkey to man.

 

tl;dr: Refer to crab's post.

 

I'll just add that we're not only talking about changes in the frequency of certain pre-existing traits here. I spoke of both mutation and genetic recombination. Supernova shows no understanding of either process.

 

Basically, in order not to believe in evolution OF SOME SORT, you have to be ignorant of science. In order to be ignorant of science you have to be A. isolated all your life or B. be a religious fundamentalist.

 

There is some dispute over the exact processes which dominate evolution, but evolution itself, as has been numerously stated before, is essentially immutable.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

You seem to be underestimating the power of mutations. There are 4 major types: substitution, which replaces a base pair with a different base pair; insertion, which places new base pairs into the sequence; deletion, which gets rid of a base pair; frameshift, which, because base pairs are read in groups of 3 called codons (so the other 3 mutations could cause that group of 3 to change), the normal reading of the codons is shifted one way or another.

 

These changes might not seem like a lot, and indeed they might not be when in regards to an individual, but you have to understand that evolution in the wild takes millions of years. The reptiles that birds came from might have had just a simple mutation that allowed their scales to grow longer than normal, which could have helped with temperature regulation. But, over time and multiple mutations, those elongated scales got longer, then got frayed, until they were comparable with the feathers of today's birds. From there, it's a (relatively) simple logical step to flight: let's say that there was a mutation that made the bones weigh less, and therefor allowed the individual to jump farther to escape being eaten or to catch prey easier. A trait that would allow for farther and longer jumps would be selected for when it showed up, and eventually you would have powered flight.

[Supernova513]

There is no set in stone evidence for the existence of a God' date=' or for Intelligent Design. On the other hand, there is DEFINITE evidence for evolution. Evolution is almost certainly correct, and even though there is a minimal chance it isn't, it is far more credible than Intelligent Design or the theory of a Divine Being governing our lives.

[/quote']

 

 

How is it more credible? As for the evidence that makes evolution so indisputable, let's review this shall we?

 

Evolutionists claim that evolution occurs because organisms need to adapt and survive therefore they must evolve or die. This makes sense as anyone can see that organisms do indeed adapt to their surroundings such as rabbits changing their fur color, cats and dogs shedding hair, etc. These are both indeed adaptions, but they DO NOT result in the organism changing its genetic makeup as these are ACQUIRED TRAITS which CANNOT be passed on. This rules out the argument that new species emerge through passing on adapted traits. Secondly, evolutionists state that evolution is made possible through genetic mutations. Genetic mutations do occur, and are responsible in altered traits observed in many organisms, including humans. Nevertheless, mutations DO NOT add new information, they only delete or scramble existing information. Moreover, mutations can either be good, bad or neutral. Most of the time they are neutral and even unnoticeable to the naked eye. If they aren't neutral, then they are most likely to be a debilitating mutation that results in an organism having two heads, extra limbs, etc. For example, only birds have the genetic capacity to grow feathers. No matter how many mutations a cat undergoes, it cannot and will not ever grow feathers. Similarly, a reptile cannot and will not ever grow fur. No matter how much they need to adapt and survive, they will always be cold-blooded with scales.

 

You clearly understand nothing about the processes we're speaking of. This is what makes this religious fundamentalist s*** so stupid. You don't truly understand the process at work.

 

Adaptation occurs through allele variation. Different alleles lead to different traits: The color of an animal's fur, for example. I'm sure you learned how heredity works in Bio 101. Offspring with a more useful fur-coloration are MORE LIKELY to survive. Thus they reproduce and in turn are MORE LIKELY to produce offspring with their own fur color.

 

Of course, these alleles have to come from somewhere. Generally they come from genetic recombination and mutation (within a sex cell, of course. Other mutation are not heritable.).

 

It's not that hard. Variation is driven through a set of processes. Successful variation increases, not guarantees, the chances of greater success and reproduction. Likewise unsuccessful variation only increases the chance of less successful organisms. Evolution is all about the trends, not the specifics. Over an extensive period of time, less successful variations tend to fade away.

 

Futhermore, many IDers and Creationists tend to confuse the dispute over mutation's role in modern human variation and its role in evolution as a process. Mutation drives simpler organisms (bacteria, other once-celled organisms, and viruses though they aren't truly alive) at a stunning speed. These organism don't have anything to do with genetic recombination, etc. They do, of course, swap DNA in a separate process.

 

The point I'm making is this: evolution can't be pinned down on one single process. A few different factors account for it, but ultimately it just comes down to Natural Selection. It's not really a disputable phenomena. It's a bit like denying that your car turns on in the morning when you twist the key in the ignition.

 

By the way, birds are not the only animals with a capacity to grow feathers. In fact, the coding for it is in many species: humans included. There's just another piece of coding, or multiple, in there somewhere that turns it off, rendering it "junk DNA." A convenient mutation could, theoretically make other animals grow feathers. That being said, the coding is likely useless at this point BECAUSE with the gene turned off, natural selection could not eliminate harmful changes.

 

Thanks for the explanation but what you described is the change in frequency of certain traits within a population and that (in cliche terms) "survival of the fittest" is what drives organisms to change. It's basically just saying that over time an animal with a white fur coat will survive longer in a snowy environment rather than one with a brown fur coat therefore making white-furred rabbits more common in that particular environment. This is true, but this DOES NOT account for the claim that species can "evolve" into another such as apes into humans or even prokaryotes into eukaryotes. Explain how organisms gain the capacity to "inter-evolve" between species? Also, why don't humans change? We adapt to our surroundings by changing them. We don't grow feathers or grow fur or extra limbs, we build houses and design cars and establish power selections. These are just some honest questions.

 

(And btw, just because someone is skeptical of of evolution or scientific claims doesn't make them a fundamentalist. The entire scientific method is based upon asking questions and being skeptical.)

 

Um... Like most evangelical science-bashers, you've failed to understand evolution. The term "Evolution" doesn't refer to creatures "species-jumping." You've taken microvolution and macroevolution and spliced them into some kind of retarded theory that claims that over the course of a night, a monkey turns into a person. Evolution IS survival of the fittest. Things EVOLVE to better suit their environment. And to confront your question, "Why don't humans evolve?" We do. The human you see today didn't just become. It evolved from humans before it's time.

 

To simplify: Evolution=/=monkey to man.

 

tl;dr: Refer to crab's post.

 

Okay first of all: 1. I'm not an evangelist. 2. I haven't said anything about God or religion so why do you guys constantly keep bringing it up? But anyway, back to your post: In that case then you are talking about adaptation not evolution. Adaptation is when an organism(s) changes to better suit its environment. And if evolution isn't the idea that one species "evolves" into another (like my previous example when scientists say that humans come from apes) then what is it? Explain "Microevolution" and "Macroevolution" and their disparities please. Humans evolve? In what ways have humans evolved?

[Willieh]

There is no set in stone evidence for the existence of a God' date=' or for Intelligent Design. On the other hand, there is DEFINITE evidence for evolution. Evolution is almost certainly correct, and even though there is a minimal chance it isn't, it is far more credible than Intelligent Design or the theory of a Divine Being governing our lives.

[/quote']

 

 

How is it more credible? As for the evidence that makes evolution so indisputable, let's review this shall we?

 

Evolutionists claim that evolution occurs because organisms need to adapt and survive therefore they must evolve or die. This makes sense as anyone can see that organisms do indeed adapt to their surroundings such as rabbits changing their fur color, cats and dogs shedding hair, etc. These are both indeed adaptions, but they DO NOT result in the organism changing its genetic makeup as these are ACQUIRED TRAITS which CANNOT be passed on. This rules out the argument that new species emerge through passing on adapted traits. Secondly, evolutionists state that evolution is made possible through genetic mutations. Genetic mutations do occur, and are responsible in altered traits observed in many organisms, including humans. Nevertheless, mutations DO NOT add new information, they only delete or scramble existing information. Moreover, mutations can either be good, bad or neutral. Most of the time they are neutral and even unnoticeable to the naked eye. If they aren't neutral, then they are most likely to be a debilitating mutation that results in an organism having two heads, extra limbs, etc. For example, only birds have the genetic capacity to grow feathers. No matter how many mutations a cat undergoes, it cannot and will not ever grow feathers. Similarly, a reptile cannot and will not ever grow fur. No matter how much they need to adapt and survive, they will always be cold-blooded with scales.

 

You clearly understand nothing about the processes we're speaking of. This is what makes this religious fundamentalist s*** so stupid. You don't truly understand the process at work.

 

Adaptation occurs through allele variation. Different alleles lead to different traits: The color of an animal's fur, for example. I'm sure you learned how heredity works in Bio 101. Offspring with a more useful fur-coloration are MORE LIKELY to survive. Thus they reproduce and in turn are MORE LIKELY to produce offspring with their own fur color.

 

Of course, these alleles have to come from somewhere. Generally they come from genetic recombination and mutation (within a sex cell, of course. Other mutation are not heritable.).

 

It's not that hard. Variation is driven through a set of processes. Successful variation increases, not guarantees, the chances of greater success and reproduction. Likewise unsuccessful variation only increases the chance of less successful organisms. Evolution is all about the trends, not the specifics. Over an extensive period of time, less successful variations tend to fade away.

 

Futhermore, many IDers and Creationists tend to confuse the dispute over mutation's role in modern human variation and its role in evolution as a process. Mutation drives simpler organisms (bacteria, other once-celled organisms, and viruses though they aren't truly alive) at a stunning speed. These organism don't have anything to do with genetic recombination, etc. They do, of course, swap DNA in a separate process.

 

The point I'm making is this: evolution can't be pinned down on one single process. A few different factors account for it, but ultimately it just comes down to Natural Selection. It's not really a disputable phenomena. It's a bit like denying that your car turns on in the morning when you twist the key in the ignition.

 

By the way, birds are not the only animals with a capacity to grow feathers. In fact, the coding for it is in many species: humans included. There's just another piece of coding, or multiple, in there somewhere that turns it off, rendering it "junk DNA." A convenient mutation could, theoretically make other animals grow feathers. That being said, the coding is likely useless at this point BECAUSE with the gene turned off, natural selection could not eliminate harmful changes.

 

Thanks for the explanation but what you described is the change in frequency of certain traits within a population and that (in cliche terms) "survival of the fittest" is what drives organisms to change. It's basically just saying that over time an animal with a white fur coat will survive longer in a snowy environment rather than one with a brown fur coat therefore making white-furred rabbits more common in that particular environment. This is true, but this DOES NOT account for the claim that species can "evolve" into another such as apes into humans or even prokaryotes into eukaryotes. Explain how organisms gain the capacity to "inter-evolve" between species? Also, why don't humans change? We adapt to our surroundings by changing them. We don't grow feathers or grow fur or extra limbs, we build houses and design cars and establish power selections. These are just some honest questions.

 

(And btw, just because someone is skeptical of of evolution or scientific claims doesn't make them a fundamentalist. The entire scientific method is based upon asking questions and being skeptical.)

 

Um... Like most evangelical science-bashers, you've failed to understand evolution. The term "Evolution" doesn't refer to creatures "species-jumping." You've taken microvolution and macroevolution and spliced them into some kind of retarded theory that claims that over the course of a night, a monkey turns into a person. Evolution IS survival of the fittest. Things EVOLVE to better suit their environment. And to confront your question, "Why don't humans evolve?" We do. The human you see today didn't just become. It evolved from humans before it's time.

 

To simplify: Evolution=/=monkey to man.

 

tl;dr: Refer to crab's post.

 

Okay first of all: 1. I'm not an evangelist. 2. I haven't said anything about God or religion so why do you guys constantly keep bringing it up? But anyway, back to your post: In that case then you are talking about adaptation not evolution. Adaptation is when an organism(s) changes to better suit its environment. And if evolution isn't the idea that one species "evolves" into another (like my previous example when scientists say that humans come from apes) then what is it? Explain "Microevolution" and "Macroevolution" and their disparities please. Humans evolve? In what ways have humans evolved?

 

Jesus Christ... *facepalming hard*

 

Adaptation and Evolution go hand in hand. Adaptation leads to evolution. In fact, I'll go even further and say that Microevolution pretty much IS adaptation. Basically, MICROevolution is when small genetic changes are made inside of a species. Wikipedia if you want a more in-depth explanation. MACROevolution is the connection of different species being related. Microevolution LEADS to macroevolution; or to put it more simply, macroevolution is made up of microevolutionary changes. It's kind of like a timeline. Or "connect the dots." It's not "You start out with a gorilla, then people." And humans have changed over time. If you've ever seen a cartoon in your life, you've probably seen an amateur illustration of the "primitive man" (i.e. 'caveman'). If you don't think people have evolved since cavemen, I'd suggest you open a book and read it.

 

To summarize: If you believe in adaptation... but you don't believe in evolution... you're dumb.

[Dark]

Adaptation + Reproduction = Evolution

 

Also:

 

ITT: Evolution can occur in an instant, and it doesn't take hundreds of years for an organism to adapt and change to it's new surrounding(s).

[Tabris]

Okay first of all: 1. I'm not an evangelist. 2. I haven't said anything about God or religion so why do you guys constantly keep bringing it up? But anyway' date=' back to your post: In that case then you are talking about [b']adaptation[/b] not evolution. Adaptation is when an organism(s) changes to better suit its environment. And if evolution isn't the idea that one species "evolves" into another (like my previous example when scientists say that humans come from apes) then what is it? Explain "Microevolution" and "Macroevolution" and their disparities please. Humans evolve? In what ways have humans evolved?

 

Fine, fine, you don't want to be pricked for something you haven't brought up. I'll draw the line and be fair to you.

 

Willieh has already answered the difference (or, in my humble opinion, lack thereof) between adaptation and evolution. So I am left to define for you the differences between micro- and macroevolution.

 

Microevolution is small-scale change below the level of the specie, while macroevolution is the opposite - large-scale change above the level of the specie.

 

And, as an addendum, humans did evolve, and do evolve still. For instance, our brains are steadily getting larger relative to body size, from the days of the earliest hominids till now. And, yes, this is one of many that happened upon us over time.