|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Evolution cant prove the big questions! |
| Even though, I believe in evolution, I am a monkeys uncle |
|
23% |
[ 6 ] |
| I believe evolution happens, but I am not a monkeys uncle |
|
34% |
[ 9 ] |
| I am undecided. there is just not enough evidence to choose a side |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
| I believe in god. |
|
19% |
[ 5 ] |
| I am a buddhist. |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
| you are all wrong. |
|
15% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
|
| Author |
Message |
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
1)What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?
2) Scientists tell us there are some 15 million insect species, 2 million marine species, millions of bird and animal species.
Yet, as we know, only one specie has developed language. If evolution is true, why only one out of millions and millions?
3) If evolution - and survival of the fittest - is true, why didn't the fastest runner, fastest flyer, fastest fish, or the specie that reproduces the most offspring, or the specie that is the biggest and strongest; evolve to dominate and wipe out the competition? |
1. Rabbits in Precambrian rock would be troublesome for our understanding of evolution.
Finding out that there's simply no method of inheritance from generation to generation and/or variations don't exist. Given inheritance with variation in an environment with competition, evolution is a logical necessity. Having said that we could be wrong on many of the details and probably are. That's the nature of science. You never have all the truth.
2. If Creationism is true why don't snakes talk? It's in Genesis. Evolution never predicts that all species will talk. Animals (and plants) develop methods of communication only as far as will help reproductive sucess. Complex language requires complex brains, so you might as well ask: If evolution is true why don't ants drive SUVs?
Funny thing is we tend to see a continuous range of communication, from hormones (plants, insects, animals) to body language (insects, animals)
to verbal communication (mammals, birds)
3. Dinosaurs dominated the earth until they were wiped out by a bit of bad luck. Moreover, fittest is a question of the environment:
Big and strong creatures don't do so well when there's no food to eat; hence every land creature larger than a turkey was a goner 65MYA. Crocodiles and sharks however are still doing fine, and haven't changed much in millions of years. Almost perfect killing machines.
Fast creatures are usually fast as they've made compromises to be so. The average Cheetah loses half of its kills to other animals as it can't afford to defend a kill; it's too fragile.
And so on. When humans enter a new environment it's the biggest, creatures that usually die first, along with those that prey on them.
We're dominant due to our large brains, yet even we aren't immune to the compromises of evolution. Our spinal column is a fair design in a quadraped, but not really suited to bipedal motion (Slipped discs and back ache.) Our brains are large, yet narrow hips are good for running, so our brains enlarged to the point where the losses in childbirth and losses due to being unable to run balanced the gain in brain size. Men have slimmer hips for obvious reasons.
Our whole bodies speak of compromise. And it's not even certain that our intelligence will be a long term survival trait. We have a long way to go to match the lifetime of the average extinct species. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
Not concerned with the origin of the universe???
You saying physicists don�t care AT ALL!! The origins of universe???
DREAM ON SUNSHINE!!
|
IM not the one saying that..
| greedy_bones wrote: |
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
I think MM2 covered this one a billion times.
. |
I think this scientist sums this up...
To answer why we don't see many of the "mistakes" in the fossil record, some scientists point out that the genetic code has a repair mechanism which is able to recognize diseased and dysfunctional genetic code and eliminate it before it has a chance to perpetuate abnormal organisms.
Aside from this not being the issue, this isn't even entirely true. Although genetic code has the ability to repair or eliminate malfunctioning genes, many diseased genes fall through the cracks, despite this. There are a host of genetic diseases -- hemophilia, various cancers, congenital cataract, spontaneous abortions, cystic fibrosis, color-blindness, and muscular dystrophy, to name just a few -- that ravage organisms and get passed on to later generations, unhampered by the genetic repair mechanism. During earth's history of robust speciation (species spawning new ones) through, allegedly, random mutation, far more genes should have fallen through the cracks.
And, as an aside, how did the genetic repair mechanism evolve before there was a genetic repair mechanism? And where are all those millions of deformed and diseased organisms that should've been produced before the genetic repair mechanism was fully functional?
But all this is besides the point. A more serious problem is the presumption that natural selection weeded out the vast majority, or all, of the "misfits."
A genetic mutation that would have resulted in, let's say, the first cow to be born with two legs instead of four, would not necessarily be recognized as dysfunctional by the genetic repair mechanism. (I'll be using "cow" as an example throughout; but it applies to almost any organism.) From the genetic standpoint, as long as a gene is sound in its own right, there's really no difference between a cow with four legs, two legs, or six tails and an ingrown milk container. It's only after the cow is born that natural selection, on the macro level, eliminates it if it's not fit to survive.
It's these types of mutations, organisms unfit to survive on the macro level, yet genetically sound, that should have littered the planet by the billions.
Sure these deformed cows would have gotten wiped out quickly by natural selection, since they had no chance of surviving. But how many millions of dysfunctional cows alone, before you even get to the billions of other species in earth's history, should have littered the planet and fossil record before the first stable, functioning cow made its debut? If you extrapolate the random combinations from a simple deck of cards to the far greater complexity of a cow, we're probably talking about tens of millions of "mistakes" that should have cluttered planet earth for just the first functioning cow.
Where are all these relics of an evolutionary past?
Did nature miraculously get billions of species right the first time? Of the fossils well-preserved enough to study, most appear to be well-designed and functional-looking. With the low aberration ratio of fossils being no more significant, as far as speciation is concerned, than common birth deformities, there seems to have been nothing of a random nature in the development of life. |
This was not written by a competent biologist. Cows inherited their four limbs from the cladistic group of tetrapods, which developed from lobe finned fish. You seem to have no actual education in this field, so it's not suprising that you lack the ability to distinguish a good argument from a bad.
It's a bit like Korean adjummas telling me how to speak English properly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:36 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
I'd be happy to play ball, but this thread should be locked.
All of the questions in the OP can be happily addressed there.
And, to be perfectly fair, the original 400+ page thread with poll was created by a creationist.
There's no need to have a new evolution thread. One is enough.
Edit: This also results in massive cross-posting. It further allows people to regurgitate arguments already addressed.
Human origins is not a popularity contest, so the poll is extraneous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
I'd be happy to play ball, but this thread should be locked.
All of the questions in the OP can be happily addressed there.
And, to be perfectly fair, the original 400+ page thread with poll was created by a creationist.
There's no need to have a new evolution thread. One is enough.
Edit: This also results in massive cross-posting. It further allows people to regurgitate arguments already addressed.
Human origins is not a popularity contest, so the poll is extraneous. |
yeah I dont know why they had to make 3 spiderman movies
one was enough!
why even make another love story movie!! we all know what happens!
boy loses girl, girl meets boy, girl boy marry
THE END! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| yeah I dont know why they had to make 3 spiderman movies |
Yeah, I don't know why I should repost the post I just made about your brilliant argument from ignorance on every thread you decide to start on the topic.
Do we want to address the Green Goblin again and again?
Your whole contribution to this topic can be covered in a single post, let alone two threads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
This was not written by a competent biologist. Cows inherited their four limbs from the cladistic group of tetrapods, which developed from lobe finned fish. You seem to have no actual education in this field, so it's not suprising that you lack the ability to distinguish a good argument from a bad.
. |
IM not trying to say I know biology! I never said I did know it..
that doesnt mean I cant ask questions..
yes I am not as informed and educated on biology as you guys..
I dont try to read all books on it becuase I'm not to interested in it.. I try to find the answers that I want answered, I research the net and books just for those answers.. I ask a lot of questions to biologists though..
you must admit that there are a lot of questions biology cant logically explain.. I guess this is what makes interesting?...
I look at the bible and see a historical history book with some fiction thrown in , but then again I can also see the origin of species as science fiction with nonfiction thrown in.
both books are missing key points.. maybe the Origin of species is just the next generation bible! in the past it didnt take man to much to believe in the bible.. but now in the information period we demand more facts, so evolutionists are presenting a far more educated book! but unfortunately with holes in it..
nothing is perfect!
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
2. If Creationism is true why don't snakes talk? It's in Genesis. Evolution never predicts that all species will talk. Animals (and plants) develop methods of communication only as far as will help reproductive sucess. Complex language requires complex brains, so you might as well ask: If evolution is true why don't ants drive SUVs?
|
why evolutionist always have to refer back to creationism?! there are people who dont believe that story either you know..
complex language requires complex brains? ! well why didnt the brain in other animals develop to speak? why not the orangutan or Chimpanzee or any similar animal?? is this one of those mysteries in biology? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| yeah I dont know why they had to make 3 spiderman movies |
Yeah, I don't know why I should repost the post I just made about your brilliant argument from ignorance on every thread you decide to start on the topic.
Do we want to address the Green Goblin again and again?
Your whole contribution to this topic can be covered in a single post, let alone two threads. |
feel free to present evidence anytime you are ready! we are all waiting!
if you are a so slick! why not have a crack at my OP!
or just admit they cant be answered like some of the board members are saying!
but if you think they all can be.. then go for it sport! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greedy_bones
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Location: not quite sure anymore
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| 1)What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory? |
a cambrian mammal or a crocoduck would be good evidence against evolution.
| Quote: |
2) Scientists tell us there are some 15 million insect species, 2 million marine species, millions of bird and animal species.
Yet, as we know, only one specie has developed language. If evolution is true, why only one out of millions and millions? |
communication exists in other species, and the great apes are capable of communicating via sign language. The lack of spoken language with large vocabularies has more to do with the intelligence of other animals and the trade offs that occur with a species as intelligent as humans. Mostly, there's a big disadvantage that humans have when it comes to giving birth. Because of the head to body ratio, humans have an incredibly high rate of birth related mortality.
3)
| Quote: |
| If evolution - and survival of the fittest - is true, why didn't the fastest runner, fastest flyer, fastest fish, or the specie that reproduces the most offspring, or the specie that is the biggest and strongest; evolve to dominate and wipe out the competition? |
Competitive exclusion occurs, but how prevalent it is, is still being debated.
With any advantage, there is a trade-off of some sort. If you take a species that is specialized in hunting a particular species of mosquito in a certain region, and one member branches out and feeds on another species, it won't be as good at hunting the original species as its primary competitors, other members of its own species. In addition, the likelihood that it could outcompete another species which has already spent millions of years refining their ability to hunt the other mosquito species is really low.
This does happen, however. Take islands for example. Australia has had all sorts of problems with species from more competitive environments out competing native species. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nautilus why you're wrong about the fossil evidence:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?p=1767822#1767822
Note the Padian sections:
II. The "Cambrian Explosion"
III. How vertebrates gained land (the "fish-amphibian" transition)
IV. The Origin of Birds
V. Fossil Mammals
What do you have to say to that?
Last edited by mindmetoo on Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greedy_bones wrote: |
| Quote: |
2) Scientists tell us there are some 15 million insect species, 2 million marine species, millions of bird and animal species.
Yet, as we know, only one specie has developed language. If evolution is true, why only one out of millions and millions? |
communication exists in other species, and the great apes are capable of communicating via sign language. The lack of spoken language with large vocabularies has more to do with the intelligence of other animals and the trade offs that occur with a species as intelligent as humans. Mostly, there's a big disadvantage that humans have when it comes to giving birth. Because of the head to body ratio, humans have an incredibly high rate of birth related mortality.
. |
Why didn�t any other primate develop just 50% of our intelligence?
If you consider the gap. IT�S HUGE!!! Can�t even compare it! Well except some of the posters on this board hahahaha
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| yeah I dont know why they had to make 3 spiderman movies |
Yeah, I don't know why I should repost the post I just made about your brilliant argument from ignorance on every thread you decide to start on the topic.
Do we want to address the Green Goblin again and again?
Your whole contribution to this topic can be covered in a single post, let alone two threads. |
I am agnostic for a reason... because I don�t bet the house with only two pair! And that�s where evolution is, its got so much riding on a hunch... you all want to keep disputing it go for it...
I suggest you write a book! And tell your story on Larry king!
Get in a room with some scientists, philosophers and other respected people and discuss it AND THEN IF YOU CAN PROVE it, all people in their respected fields admit it, then I will step over the line.... because last I heard 2008! The world is still not celebrating any winner!
Nice try though nowhere man...
I mean you all seem to think its in the bag and a done deal! sorry guys but you are a bunch of extreme existentialists and far to proud ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| I mean you all seem to think its in the bag and a done deal! sorry guys but you are a bunch of extreme existentialists and far to proud ! |
I thought this thread was locked...
We're proud? You're the one loudly proclaiming no one knows anything and therefore you are agnostic to the bone.
Yesterday, evolutionary theory was a religion, today it's an existentialist philosophy?
It's like arguing with someone who has multiple personality disorder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| I mean you all seem to think its in the bag and a done deal! sorry guys but you are a bunch of extreme existentialists and far to proud ! |
I thought this thread was locked...
We're proud? You're the one loudly proclaiming no one knows anything and therefore you are agnostic to the bone.
Yesterday, evolutionary theory was a religion, today it's an existentialist philosophy?
It's like arguing with someone who has multiple personality disorder. |
No...It�s that the universe is so complex human minds can�t even fathom to comprehend it! So it takes a lot of different prospectives...
That�s why we have so many great minds throughout history...
better to say I am unsure than proclaiming I know.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| unsure what an appeal to ignorance is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| unsure what an appeal to ignorance is? |
I like your reverse psychology tactic here, but I�m sorry if anyone needs a conclusion it�s YOUR CAMP!
I�m still waiting for the fossil evidence! Not to mention the evidence on
The evolution of proteins!
you got anything??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Blargh, I'm itaewonguy!!! I keep changing my argument but I have no real point to make!!! BBIBBOBBIBBO!! I like exclamation marks!!!! HUZZAH!!!!! Nobody knows anything about everything!!!! ARGH!!! BLARGH!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
