- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A Scientific dissent from Darwin
Posted on 2/11/19 at 9:35 pm to Fun Bunch
Posted on 2/11/19 at 9:35 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:Well that’s not really true, but the terms and their distinction seem to be misrepresented as if they are essentially different theories instead of the same theory with a difference of scale.
There’s no such thing as “macro” evolution, loon.
In other words, I think the term “macro evolution” was just meant to differentiate the scale of the study of same theory of evolution, somewhat similar to macroeconomics and microeconomics. Instead those terms appears to be misrepresented as two separate theories of evolution.
Cal-Berkeley: What is macroevolution?
quote:
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
1
Posted on 2/11/19 at 9:36 pm to bmy
I'm not religious.
I am amused however how by the amount of faith out into something that is demonstrably fallable.
I am amused however how by the amount of faith out into something that is demonstrably fallable.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 9:39 pm to buckeye_vol
Macro is a term generally used by creationist loons.
There’s no scientific distinction.
There’s no scientific distinction.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 9:40 pm to mattloc
Don't care what they argue. Natural Selection is a thing and needs to be allowed to happen.
To many GD warning labels.
To many GD warning labels.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 9:44 pm to byeyoutiger
quote:
JMHO, the reaction against intelligent design is so obvious in the concept and notion itself....That this world and universe could actually be created by the Creator. Funny or not, such a simple declaration causes more emotional responses than intelligent ones.
You're speaking the truth there. It's amazing.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 9:46 pm to TigerBait1971
quote:Like pretty much any scientific theory, I’m not pretending that theory is anywhere near complete and perfect. I mean if it was then there would be no need to study it really.
I am amused however how by the amount of faith out into something that is demonstrably fallable.
But that doesn’t negate the fact that there is a ton of evidence, across many scientific disciplines that support the overall theory of evolution and many of the smaller details. How is basing one’s understanding on this evidence considered “faith,” as if we don’t have the evidence to support it?
In fact, although it’s somewhat of a meme, but it’s pretty widely accepted that we have a better understanding of evolution than we do gravity. So isn’t believing in gravity just “faith” by your representation?
Posted on 2/11/19 at 9:57 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:I think it’s been co-opted and then misrepresented by them.
Macro is a term generally used by creationist loons.
quote:And that’s my point. It was used to describe a practical and understandable difference in the scale of study of a theory. In fact, microevolution was first used to describe the small processes that contribute to evolution on a grand scale.
There’s no scientific distinction.
Instead it’s been misrepresented as a meaningful scientific distinction.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 10:21 pm to mattloc
quote:
“The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.”
Very true. It means death to ones career. The same can be said for being skeptical of "global warming" - or climate change caused by human activity.
It seems like America may be waking up enough to question them though.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 10:32 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Romans 1:19-25
Posted on 2/11/19 at 10:54 pm to bmy
quote:
Think about this for a second and ask yourself whether this is more applicable to creationist/IDers or people who believe in evolution through natural selection
Many on both sides, but without a Huffington Post poll, I'd say it's more prevalent among the global warming proponents. They are a religious group too.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 10:57 pm to Lg
quote:
Genesis 1:20-24 And God said, Let the waters bring forth and the earth bring forth. And in no way would that put any restrictions on how things evolved from there.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
It's called Theistic Evolution.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:15 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:The evolution of eyes has been studied and discussed so much that it's funny that it's your example of a seemingly impossible evolutionary step.
Does showing how a finch has small variations in color or beak size to fit their environment prove the evolutionary mechanism by which an animal goes from no eyes to having fully formed eyes?
The ability to detect light is so beneficial that single-celled organisms can do it. Plants can detect light. Light is just radiation, so in a sense even your skin can "see" sunlight. The sun is quite an important source of energy for life on earth, so the ability to detect it has been around almost since the very beginning of life itself.
And if the huge leap from simple light detection to true vision is hard for you to accept as possible solely via evolution, then you should do a quick bit of research on the wide variety of eyes that exist in extant species. You can find eyes in just about every stage of evolutionary development. That said, many creatures with eyes have long since developed "fully formed" eyes, often seemingly specialized for their own survival. This is because the ability to see is such a HUGE survival advantage for most species that any mutation pertaining to sight is either eliminated from the gene pool or becomes the dominant trait in a population very, very quickly.
Every single step of the way from basic light detection to full color sharp vision is advantageous to most animals. Every added bit of eye complexity is of benefit to the creature that first evolved it. From a few photoreceptive cells to a larger patch of them, to a cup surrounding them, to a protective membrane covering them, to muscles to move them around, etc. Models predict that it would only take a few hundred thousand generations for a species to evolve true vision from basic light detection. A blink of an eye in evolutionary time scales.
Eyes are probably the easiest complex organ to explain via evolution.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:21 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
It requires an acknowledgement that the Bible may just use allegory as its primary tool to convey information.
It does, and knowing that is the key to really understanding, and getting past all the ideas of God and Christianity being bad.
Galatians 4:21-31
ETA:
quote:
I find the more that I understand, the more I tend to consider a creative being likely. A "God"
I did the same, shifted to atheism as an undergrad, only to realize how wrong I was.
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 11:24 pm
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:30 pm to Scoop
quote:That depends on *how* advantageous a particular mutation is, and the size of the population.
That’s ludicrous.
When a mutation gives a survival advantage to a small sample of a species, it takes generation upon generation upon generation before that mutation is passed along to the point that the carriers of the mutation become the dominant representation of that species.
quote:That depends on how you define "at once". If you mean one generation, then no. But if you mean "a span of time that is smaller than the resolution of the fossil record", then a mutation absolutely could happen "at once".
It’s not like the mutations occur over the entire species at once.
quote:Uh, suggesting that every species has *not* experienced millions of mutations is crazy talk.
Suggesting that every species has experienced millions of mutations is crazy talk.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:32 pm to narddogg81
quote:
I was speaking of the most very basic origins of life, of biology. I fully believe organisms evolve and adaot over time through natural selection within the confines available in the plasticity of their dna. I want you, or anyone, to explain how the first organism evolved the cellular machinery to be alive, out of a random mix of amino acids and peptides, just straight up granting that those happened to be present all in one place, in the right properties, etc. How does the very first alive thing make the proteins, enzymes, cellular machinery, etc, that we know for a fact is required for life, when almost all of it is very complex and dependent in a very fundamental way on the presence of the rna and or DNA code and other cell machinery to be present to work. I'm not speaking of evolving organs or complex structures, or changing species, etc. I'm talking about the very most basic possible thing. Even if you had, say, a perfect soup of CGAT nucleobases at the right temp, how do those arrange themselves into something meaningful. Where did the information come from? How do you get from that to even the most basic thing we know is needed, RNA, when there is a host of cellular machinery required to produce RNA, and those bits of machinery themselves require the information stored in RNA to be produced? Please give me some answer other than an appeal to authority fallacy or, we just know it had to.
And consider the odds of such a miracle occurring multiplied by the odds of it occurring again during that first organisms lifetime multiplied by the odds of the two organisms being in close enough proximity to reproduce.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:35 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:Not many, relatively speaking.
for example Hippo ancestors turned into whales according to many macro evolutionists. They are supposedly part of the same evolutionary tree. How many new organs and adaptions are required to go from hippo to dolphin/whale?
quote:Why do whales have a pelvis and leg bones? Why do manatees have toenails?
What evidence do we have for such a transition?
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:39 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
The time scales of observation through recorded history haven’t been long enough.
I think That is his point
But I think We can look at how selective breading over a couple hundred years has effected Animals and see where they could start changing to the point where they’re no longer what we would classify as the same species.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:39 pm to Korkstand
Well according to the MSB, evolution is real and real quick...because LeBron is supposedly 10X better than MJ because he was the next generation...and every player in 90's sucked compared to today because of evolution and Gatorade.
So in the public's eye - evolution happens overnight...one generation...is so much better than the next according to sports logic. Magic and Bird couldn't play today in the NBA, Jordan would be a bench player in his prime, LeBron is the best ever because evolution and not championships.
So in the public's eye - evolution happens overnight...one generation...is so much better than the next according to sports logic. Magic and Bird couldn't play today in the NBA, Jordan would be a bench player in his prime, LeBron is the best ever because evolution and not championships.
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 11:41 pm
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:39 pm to LSUbest
quote:
And consider the odds of such a miracle occurring multiplied by the odds of it occurring again during that first organisms lifetime multiplied by the odds of the two organisms being in close enough proximity to reproduce.
Come on, bro. Asexual reproduction.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:44 pm to narddogg81
quote:
its been refined by completely flipping the original premise that species originate gradually from one version of the animal to another, predicting thousands or millions of intermediate versions of the animal, until it has become a different animal. This was accepted as fact by the entire scientific world in complete confidence that it would be validated asmore examples we unearthed, except that didn't happen. So then they adanded basically the entire original premise and say it happens almost instantly, so fast that it can't be captured in the fossil record, through incalculable numbers of advantageous mutations (which are vanishingly rare), happening not just in one species but in every single one that we see explode in just a few million years. And that extremely unlikely series of events has happened not once but dozens of times we know about. I'm not sure why you don't see the problem with that. The math just didn't add up. Thinking about this kind of stuff is what science should be doing. The should be no sacred cows
You are right, it's called punctuated equilibrium, and it is statistically impossible.
Page 17 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News