Evolution

[GUNNARY SEARGENT HARTMAN]

Hi, I'm GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN. I started this thread with the basic idea to have a debate over whether theroies of evolution, the dawn of life and others are true, fact, lies or rumors. I will ask if you would follow ALL of the rules provided by SaRuMaN and follow them to the last letter. I want NO breaking of the rules and I also want sources sited and no baiting, or calling names. I did it and I have been banned from chat, so think on. I hope you enjoy doing this and it will be an experience for us all.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

Edited April 10, 2008 by GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

[Wickian]

I believe evolution is a conscious change that occurs during an animals life and upbringing, not birth/conception. Just like how skin is designed to callous over, I believe all living things bodies are designed to change depending on how that specific animal lives and acts.

[GUNNARY SEARGENT HARTMAN]

Technically, the evolution theory explains the chicken and egg question, as I posted on my profile, according to theories, life began by bacteria forming over the earth which then evolved into sea creatures which EVENTUALLY evolved into land animals, then mammals, therefore, the chicken was created by evolution, according to the theory anyway.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

P.S Anyone who wants to, and I'm not forcing the matter, can add evidence to back up their claims, or theories, but don't forget to site the scources everytime no matter how small the quote of the scource is

[Wickian]

I was referring to evolution in the form of adaptation mainly. I have no idea how life started, and I think it will be a long time before we know with 100% certainty.

[GUNNARY SEARGENT HARTMAN]

I was referring to evolution in the form of adaptation mainly. I have no idea how life started, and I think it will be a long time before we know with 100% certainty.

I agree, but I also agree with your point on adaption. If you left a human in conditions such as the south pole, like a human from egypt, and he reproduced while there, his line of children will continually be more and more adapted towards the southern pole conditions. But also, evolution in the way of DNA changing, causing mutations and so forth.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

[Aquila]

But also, evolution in the way of DNA changing, causing mutations and so forth.

I believe that DNA is an adapting molecule of ‘design’ properties…as opposed to a molecule with ‘pattern’ properties. Hence, I’m swayed that a creator’s hand has played a part in its origin.

No naturally occurring molecule possesses the properties of information. We have yet to discover a naturalistic process that produces information…nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.

DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism.

My personal view…I believe language comes from the mind.

[Raptor]

I believe evolution is a conscious change that occurs during an animals life and upbringing, not birth/conception. Just like how skin is designed to callous over, I believe all living things bodies are designed to change depending on how that specific animal lives and acts.

That's a concept known as Lamarckian evolution, and it's false. An individual might develop roughened skin during it's lifetime due to the environment, but that won't be passed down to the offspring. What actually happens is, if we pretend that roughened skin was for some reason beneficial, you'd have a population of animals and the ones with the roughest skin would have an advantage over others, they'd out compete the ones without rough skin and soon they'll be the only ones left.

[Wickian]

That's a concept known as Lamarckian evolution, and it's false. An individual might develop roughened skin during it's lifetime due to the environment, but that won't be passed down to the offspring. What actually happens is, if we pretend that roughened skin was for some reason beneficial, you'd have a population of animals and the ones with the roughest skin would have an advantage over others, they'd out compete the ones without rough skin and soon they'll be the only ones left.

That's why I referred to my opinion of adaptive evolution as a conscious change. Kind of like mind over matter, when a living thing becomes aware of a more efficient form or way of doing things, it changes. For all we know males might be capable of subconsciously mutating their half of the dna to specifically fit the environment they live in. I"m probably wrong, but it's what makes the most sense to me.

[GUNNARY SEARGENT HARTMAN]

That's why I referred to my opinion of adaptive evolution as a conscious change. Kind of like mind over matter, when a living thing becomes aware of a more efficient form or way of doing things, it changes. For all we know males might be capable of subconsciously mutating their half of the dna to specifically fit the environment they live in. I"m probably wrong, but it's what makes the most sense to me.

I think that adapting isn't really mutating the genome or dna, more like slowly being able to withstand harsh environments. On wikipedia, it states that:

An adaptation is a positive characteristic of an organism that has been favored by natural selection.[1] The concept is central to biology, particularly in evolutionary biology.

Something you have to get used to in the enviroment.Any change in the structure or functioning of an organism that makes it better suited to its environment is known as adaptation. [source: Oxford Dictionary of Science]

Adaptation is the change in living organisms that allow them to live successfully in an environment. Adaptations enable living organisms to cope with environmental stresses and pressures. Adaptations can be structural, behavioral or physiological. Structural adaptations are special body parts of an organism that help it to survive in its natural habitat (e.g., skin colour, shape, body covering). Behavioural adaptations are special ways a particular organism behaves to survive in its natural habitat. Physiological adaptations are systems present in an organism that allow it to perform certain biochemical reactions (e.g., making venom, secreting slime, being able to keep a constant body temperature).

Adaptations are traits that have been selected by natural selection. The underlying genetic basis for the adaptive trait did not arise as a consequence of the environment; the genetic variant pre-existed and was subsequently selected because it provided the bearer of that variant some advantage. The first experimental evidence of the pre-existing nature of genetic variants was provided by Luria and Delbrück who developed fluctuation analysis, a method to show the random fluctuation of pre-exisitng genetic changes that conferred resistance to antibiotics by the bacterium Escherichia coli

While many traits have obvious adaptive purposes, it is worthwhile to point out that many traits are not adaptive, that is, there is no obvious reason scientists can divine for the presence of a certain trait. This situation is common and there are many causes: the utility of a trait is lost and hence does not now appear adaptive, the utility of a trait is unknown, the trait is a consequence of another trait that is adaptive (the Spandrel idea). This observation underscores two other important points: genetic variants arise randomly and hence traits can appear randomly and that because the environment for all living things is constantly in flux, the utility of adaptations will naturally ebb and flow.

Organisms that are not suitably adapted to their environment will either have to move out of the habitat or die out. The term die out in the context of adaptation simply means that the death rate over the entire species (population, gene pool ...) exceeds the birth rate for a long enough period for the species to disappear; due to individual phenotypic plasticity, individuals will be more or less successful. The opposite is selection which in this context means that the birth rate of those carrying the adaptive trait and the hence the underlying genetic variant exceeds over time the birth rate of those that do not carry the adaptive trait. Therefore, those that cannot adapt becomes extinct, like dinosaurs, which therefore gives another theory of how dinosaurs died out, the world changed and they couldn't keep up.

Heres the link if you want to read on: Wikipedia: Evolution

[HAJiME]

Evolution is a highly misunderstood theory... And even word!

I don't have the time for anyone who doesn't understand it's most simplistic notions and even less for those who claim to understand but deny it. I am sick of hearing "we didn't evolve from monkeys lol!!! why aren't all the monkeys peopel then????"

I, despite my avatar, do not follow it's every word as fact. It's there more to p*** people off, because I am a jerk.

Evolutionary theory has some huge holes in it, that a lot of followes don't seem to know about or even want to acknowledge. And those people are just are ignorant as those who deny Evolution all together... And the people who think evolution means monkeys turned into people. Evolution is a theory. Too many people forget that.

Edited April 11, 2008 by HAJiME

[Incorrigible1]

Evolution is a theory. Too many people forget that.

So is gravity.

[Drayno]

About evolution, an example of Human adaptation over a long period of time would be the Moken people of South-East Asia. They have twice the visual acuity of European people due to the amount of time they spend diving for food. Their children actually learn to swim before they learn to walk. They are called Sea Gypsies.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Drayno Helvey

[HAJiME]

All babies can swim before they walk. They've just spend the last 9 months floating and wriggling about in fluid.

Edited April 11, 2008 by HAJiME

[GUNNARY SEARGENT HARTMAN]

All babies can swim before they walk. They've just spend the last 9 months floating and wriggling about in fluid.

Thats a common misconception, babies CANNOT swim in water, but they can survive up to an hour in water straight after birth. All because it can survive in water doe not mean that it can swim. Do not mistake the two.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

[Mattshark]

Evolution is a highly misunderstood theory... And even word!

I don't have the time for anyone who doesn't understand it's most simplistic notions and even less for those who claim to understand but deny it. I am sick of hearing "we didn't evolve from monkeys lol!!! why aren't all the monkeys peopel then????"

I, despite my avatar, do not follow it's every word as fact. It's there more to p*** people off, because I am a jerk.

Evolutionary theory has some huge holes in it, that a lot of followes don't seem to know about or even want to acknowledge. And those people are just are ignorant as those who deny Evolution all together... And the people who think evolution means monkeys turned into people. Evolution is a theory. Too many people forget that.

So what are the huge wholes? It something I have seen many times, but has never been answered adequately.

Speciation is a proven fact.

Micro-evolution has been observed.

The theory of evolution is a theory (something that requires a substantial amount of scientific evidence). Evolution is a fact.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Mattshark

[GUNNARY SEARGENT HARTMAN]

Also, to quickly add to my other post, if babies could swim immediately after birth, why would we need to learn how to sim? Again, another flaw in your comment HAJime

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

[HAJiME]

I didn't say they were born with the ability to swim, I just said it was easier for them than walking. Which it is. The water supports their weight and they have much better control over not letting water in than adults.

As for evolution and it's flaws, many creatures, which completely different evolutionary paths, end up with such similar designs. I think that it's quite obvious that the result just must be the best way of "coping" with the problem, but creationists claim it's too much of a coincidence.

What most educated non-believers won't accept about evolution is the creation of a whole new species. It is a bit, loose. Some species are so highly similar... whilst others are so independant. There is a HUGE lack of "missing links" for the millions and billions of species to show their transitional forms. Whilst one could argue we simply haven't discovered them yet, assuming that is doing exactly what religious folk like to do. And it bugs me.

Evolution also contradicts general physics and biology with spontaneous...ness.

Micro evolution is fact. It's been observed. But it's wrong to assume that maco-evolution must be true because of that. I believe, because I feel there is more in it's favour than against, but I'm not ignorant enough to ignore the "problems" of the theory.

Edited April 11, 2008 by HAJiME

[GUNNARY SEARGENT HARTMAN]

All babies can swim before they walk.

Yes you did say that babies can swim, it says so right there

You then go on to say in the post above:

I didn't say they were born with the ability to swim, I just said it was easier for them than walking

WHAT A CONTRADICTION!

I will just repeat that: In one post you say, I qoute: All babies can swim before they walk. The definition for swim is: 1. to move in water by movements of the limbs, fins, tail, etc. So technically you are saying that babies do that: 'move in water by movements of the limbs'. You go on to say, 'I didn't say they were born with the ability to swim', but you did, see. Because by using the word swim. I naturally assumed that you meant immdeiately able to do so, i.e move forwards or swim in a controlled way.

The morale of the story: Don't contradict yourself, and don't make comments which you know will later be assessed by me or others, and ridiculed. Also, don't make vague comments like: 'all babies can swim before they walk.'

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

Edited April 11, 2008 by GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

[Repoman]

Technically, the evolution theory explains the chicken and egg question

Yes, this is correct. "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" is only a conundrum to vapid dolts with no ability to chain concepts together.

If you believe in creationism then you believe the chicken came first. (The magical genie in the sky clicked his heels together and a chicken pooped into existence)

If you believe in evolution then you believe the egg came first. (A creature that was a single genetic mutation removed from what we would consider a modern-day chicken laid an egg that contained that final mutation)

An individual might develop roughened skin during it's lifetime due to the environment, but that won't be passed down to the offspring.

I'm not 100% sure that there doesn't exist some mechanism with which the DNA in the eggs isn't slightly programmed by the female. What scientists consider the "junk" DNA might be analogous to executable code whereas the DNA that is known to map to certain attributes might just be the data tables. Edited April 12, 2008 by Repoman

[Repoman]

Yes you did say that babies can swim, it says so right there

All babies can swim before they walk

You then go on to say in the post above:

I didn't say they were born with the ability to swim, I just said it was easier for them than walking

WHAT A CONTRADICTION!

The morale of the story: Don't contradict yourself, and don't make comments which you know will later be assessed by me or others, and ridiculed. Also, don't make vague comments like: 'all babies can swim before they walk.'

To be accurate, you never claimed that babies are born with the ability to walk. And that would be necessary for you to argue that he contradicted himself (because you used "born with" as a rebuttal point of contention and he never said "born with").

The only postulates advanced by HAJiME in this debate were:

1. Babies acquire the ability to swim before they acquire the ability to walk.

2. It is easier for a baby to swim than to walk.

I have no idea whether those postulates are true or not. I only know that you did nothing to disprove his statements.

Edited April 12, 2008 by Repoman

[GUNNARY SEARGENT HARTMAN]

I obviously did. Right, HAJimesaid, babies swim before they walk, and can swim because they have been in fluid for 9 months. I retorted wth, Thats a common misconception, babies CANNOT swim in water, but they can survive up to an hour in water straight after birth. All because it can survive in water does not mean that it can swim. Do not mistake the two. Therfore, when HAJime said what he/she did, he/she impied that the baby can swim. It can't. Yeah it can be suported by the water, that doesn't mean it can swim.

Also, repoman, why the hell would I actually say that babies are born with the ability to walk? How the hell would that prove his contradiftion? His contradiction is staring at you in the face! We are talking about the baby swmming, not it walking. Also, when have I ever said 'born with'?? HAJime has, I haven't. Please read all the posts and not the quotes. That way, you can interpret all the facts and not a select few phrases and punchlines.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

[Repoman]

That way, you can interpret all the facts and not a select few phrases and punchlines.

But the punchlines are the best part.

AIRBORNE

[HAJiME]

Maybe when GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN learns to use the caps lock and shift keys, I'll take him seriously.

Repoman has a brain.

I said that "all babies can swim before they can walk" - okay, so what I really meant was "all babies could swim before they can walk."

It looks like, to me, you just want an argument. Arguing over the definitions of "swimming." I'm sorry, but I thought being in water kicking your arms and legs about around you in order to move was enough to count as swimming. A babies "dive reflex" is far, far, far stronger than an adults. Up to about 2 years, I think? They are quite capable of swimming under the water. That reflex is so strong it's been known to starve babies of oxygen and kill them.

Apparently, having a quick look on Google, the gag reflex is more like 12-18 months... And they also have the "amphibian reflex" which causes them to kick their limbs in spouts to move in the water.

So, in other words, you got owned. Do a Google search for babies swimming dive reflex or something and you'll find loads of stuff.

Edited April 12, 2008 by HAJiME

[GUNNARY SEARGENT HARTMAN]

Maybe when GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN learns to use the caps lock and shift keys, I'll take him seriously.

Repoman has a brain.

I said that "all babies can swim before they can walk" - okay, so what I really meant was "all babies could swim before they can walk."

It looks like, to me, you just want an argument. Arguing over the definitions of "swimming." I'm sorry, but I thought being in water kicking your arms and legs about around you in order to move was enough to count as swimming. A babies "dive reflex" is far, far, far stronger than an adults. Up to about 2 years, I think? They are quite capable of swimming under the water. That reflex is so strong it's been known to starve babies of oxygen and kill them.

Apparently, having a quick look on Google, the gag reflex is more like 12-18 months... And they also have the "amphibian reflex" which causes them to kick their limbs in spouts to move in the water.

So, in other words, you got owned. Do a Google search for babies swimming dive reflex or something and you'll find loads of stuff.

And you think you have a brain because you use google? Ha! I didn't get owned at all, far from it, you got it wrong, and your trying to pull yourself back and its not working. Repoman, I agree punchlines are the best bit lol . HAJime, why ridiclue my name? I had a full blown argumant and got a formal warning because someone ridiculed my name and I hurled profanity back in their faces. The ohter in question got done for bait ing and harrassing (Because they didn't let it drop. The fact is, your using my name as a weak argument because you where incorrect in the way you phrased your posts. Basically, you are right in what you said, but I said what I said to show you how and where you got it wrong, not to pick a fight. Hhopefully, we can all start to talk about evolution and not babies swimming lol.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

[Saru]

Agreed, lets get this back on topic please.