aquatus1 Posted July 30, 2006 #51 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Someone who brings up a topic over a month old and posts a bunch of individual items that have already been presented in it is not in a good position to talk about how far behind the curve something else is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted July 31, 2006 #52 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I believe that evolution is partially real. I won't go on to say it's 100% real, because if we knew that, it would be JUST fact, and not theory. A theory is only partial fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Startraveler Posted July 31, 2006 #53 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Theories explain and account for facts. The word "evolution" has the misfortune of being used to describe both the fact of nature and the mechanisms believed to be responsible for that fact. Which lets people get away with misleading statements like "evolution is just a theory." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 31, 2006 #54 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Depends on what you are refering to. Evolution can be defined both as a fact and as several theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Startraveler Posted July 31, 2006 #55 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Okay then, please explain to me how the entire universe started, if you can't explain that, then what am I missing? Please tell me how anything comes from nothing, the "big bang theory" how does it happen if there is no God? There are some points in this thread and this one that may give you something to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 31, 2006 #56 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Just to point out, that comment was made over a month and a half ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A+Certified Posted July 31, 2006 #57 Share Posted July 31, 2006 God DOES exist, that can't even be questioned God DOESNT exist, and anyone can question that as much as they like. but thats what I know, weather you do or not. all you keep saying is "think man" "look at the world" and such. thats nothing to me, heck i know evolution has its problems, but if i told you, just look around man, evo. is right, you wouldnt believe me either. take a walk in my shoes. you seem defensive, lol. my post was a long itme ago and i admit it was rude, so i ask you in your response to be a little more civilized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted July 31, 2006 #58 Share Posted July 31, 2006 it takes millions of years for ONE life from to evolve into another. Now multiply that by all the life forms on Earth now, and there is'nt enough time for all that to happen in 65 million years. Not even close. This is something I've always wondered too. Instead of assuming things though, I'll ask. How many species would be too many species for evolution to have created giving the age of the Earth? And how many species do we currently know about right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 31, 2006 #59 Share Posted July 31, 2006 The first is impossible to tell, unfortunately. There are entirely too many variables affecting evolution that we know about, don't know about, or simply suspect, might exist. Too many extinction events for us to be able to get a solid grip on something like that. Evolution isn't the steady, slow, progressive thing that Darwin thought it was, nor is life something that move's easily up a scale chart. It sprints, slows, wanders, and jogs. The number of known living species are somewhere around 1.7 million, give or take. We find somewhere in the neighborhood of 12,000 to 15,000 new species a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor Posted July 31, 2006 #60 Share Posted July 31, 2006 it takes millions of years for ONE life from to evolve into another. Evolution is constantly occuring, there's no definitive boundary between one animal and the next in terms of evolution, it's not like evolving animals will one day gave birth to a different species; it's only really in retrospect that you can differentiate between different species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harks Posted July 31, 2006 #61 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Now the Creationists and Scientific views are always going to be in controversy. But if the Evolutionists Theories were correct, then too well would it be a scientific view to study the Creationists. With the Creationists it is a grand design type of project, a higher being that designed mankind. For example if this Earth was a major project to study life and the results of the study where not what you wanted, so wouldn't it be expected to destroy the first experiment and start a new program. Reptiles did not develop into a sapience being, so lets try mammals, this is only a theory of mine, so please do not get on a band wagon. This is how I see the possibility of Darwin’s theory and the Creationists theory. (A joining of the two anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 31, 2006 #62 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I...couldn't really understand what you said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted July 31, 2006 #63 Share Posted July 31, 2006 The first is impossible to tell, unfortunately. There are entirely too many variables affecting evolution that we know about, don't know about, or simply suspect, might exist. Too many extinction events for us to be able to get a solid grip on something like that. Evolution isn't the steady, slow, progressive thing that Darwin thought it was, nor is life something that move's easily up a scale chart. It sprints, slows, wanders, and jogs. The number of known living species are somewhere around 1.7 million, give or take. We find somewhere in the neighborhood of 12,000 to 15,000 new species a year. In other words it doesn't seem likely to Zero that all these species evolved in that short amount of time. O_o Don't get me wrong, I beleive evolution does happen to a certain degree. But I'm not so sure about this one. I can't honastly say it was possible being that we don't really know, but it doesn't seem likely to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 31, 2006 #64 Share Posted July 31, 2006 In other words it doesn't seem likely to Zero that all these species evolved in that short amount of time. O_o That's an odd thing to say. How did you get that from my explanation? Don't get me wrong, I beleive evolution does happen to a certain degree. But I'm not so sure about this one. I can't honastly say it was possible being that we don't really know, but it doesn't seem likely to me. I'm not sure where you are going with this. What doesn't seem likely to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclonus J Posted July 31, 2006 #65 Share Posted July 31, 2006 One thing I think people do not sometimes understand is that Creation and Evolution are not necessarily against each other. In fact I, a Creationist, believe in both. Could God not have created the Earth by means of evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted July 31, 2006 #66 Share Posted July 31, 2006 (edited) Put it this way, aquatus. To me it does not seem likely that evolution could have created all of these species in the Earth's lifetime. BUT since, like you said, it's impossible to tell, I have no reason to believe it was impossible, nor do I have a reason to believe it was possible. So I can't say either way if it could or couldn't have happened. It just doesn't seem very likely to me. By the way, aquatus. Did you include plants/trees, bacteria, etc in that 1.7 million? And to the above poster: I guess you could find a way to allow the Christian God and evolution to agree with eachother, but it doesn't seem likely to me. I'm a Deist, therefore I do not define the creator... meaning that evolution in no way contradicts a creator. I see no reason why the creator wouldn't have used evolution to create everything. He/She/It may have started the big-bang knowing what it would lead to, then just let nature take it's course. Edited July 31, 2006 by ZeroShadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor Posted July 31, 2006 #67 Share Posted July 31, 2006 As a soft guide, however, the numbers of currently identified species can be broken down as follows [1]: 287,655 plants; 10,000 lichens; 1,190,200 invertebrates (including 950,000 insects); and 57,739 vertebrates, including 28,500 fishes, 5,743 amphibians, 8,163 reptiles, 9,917 birds, and 5,416 mammals. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 31, 2006 #68 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Put it this way, aquatus. To me it does not seem likely that evolution could have created all of these species in the Earth's lifetime. BUT since, like you said, it's impossible to tell, I have no reason to believe it was impossible, nor do I have a reason to believe it was possible. So I can't say either way if it could or couldn't have happened. It just doesn't seem very likely to me. I suppose the part I am having trouble with is what you mean by "all of these species". If you are referring to the 1.7 mil we currently have, evolution could account for that easily. If we factor in the amount of time since life began, we are talking in the order of possibly hundreds of millions of species that could have come about. You asked how many species would be too many to account for in the time elapsed, and that question is impossible to answer with any accuracy, but the reason for that is not that we don't have any idea, but that the range of answers is so large. At the absolute minimum is the 1.7 million that we know of today. The middle road would be the several thousand more that we have evidence of existing. The actual amount of species that has evolved and died off could easily number in the hundreds of millions. It is a little bit like asking how many grains of sand are in a beach. Well, we know of the several hundred in our bucket, but the actual amount is impossible to count. You shouldn't consider that a license to not believe that the beach exists, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted July 31, 2006 #69 Share Posted July 31, 2006 So in other words, given the Earth's age, there was plenty of time for evolution to create the 1.7mil+ successful species we have now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted August 1, 2006 #70 Share Posted August 1, 2006 There was enough time to create anywhere from 1.7 mill, to 17 mill, to 170 mill, depending which scenarios you want to look at. It is all theoretical, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted August 1, 2006 #71 Share Posted August 1, 2006 (edited) There was enough time to create anywhere from 1.7 mill, to 17 mill, to 170 mill, depending which scenarios you want to look at. It is all theoretical, however. That's what confused me. If some of evolution is theoretical, and assumptions, how can it be called "Fact" or several theories? If any one of those theories are assumptions are wrong, it can cause the idea of evolution to begin to collapse. Edited August 1, 2006 by ZeroShadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted August 1, 2006 #72 Share Posted August 1, 2006 That's what confused me. If some of evolution is theoretical, and assumptions, how can it be called "Fact" or several theories? If any one of those theories are assumptions are wrong, it can cause the idea of evolution to begin to collapse. Not at all. That is the beauty of science; it is self-correcting, and allows for change with new data. But first, some definitions are in order. In science, context is everything, and many things have different definitions depending on the context that they are being used in. Evolution, for instance, can be defined both as a fact and as a several theories. As a fact, evolution is defined as the mutation of the genome throughout generations. This happens, is observed, and there is really no debate about it whatsoever. It happens. It is a factual phenomenon. Evolution, however, can also be used in a different manner. Evolution can be used to speak about a series of theories that concern what causes, effects, and results from these mutations of the genome throughout generations. Used in such a manner, "evolution" becomes an umbrella term for all the theories dealing with the changing genome. In the same way that "erosion" does not refer to one process, but rather to many different processes which all come to a fairly similar effect, so do evolutionary theories all pretty much talk about the same topic. Some evolutionary theories are beyond questions. The theory of meiosis, for instance, quite accurately describes the process during which the cell seperates the DNA strands during duplication and the mutations that arise therein. This theory is seen to occur time and time again, can be induced, can be predicted, and is even the cornerstone for a great many of the technologies and fields concerning microbiology. Other theories are a bit more controversial. Punctuated Equilibrium, while gradually becoming more widely accepted by mainstream science, is still very much the new kid on the block, and time will tell if the theory has staying power. Basically, the theory posits that times of great environmental distress result in the appearance of mutations in far greater quantities than normally seen. The data supporting it is valid, but the conclusion is what causes much debate among scientists, to say nothing of the implications. The thing of it is, however, that it isn't an all or nothing type of situation. It may well be that Punctuated Equilibrium is wrong, or it may be that it is right, but that will not affect the rest of what we know about evolution, nor will it affect the data that brought about the theory in the first place. At worst, we will simply have to create a new theory to explain the data we have. Even if it turns out that the judeo-christian god snapped his fingers and created everything from nothing, that would not change the facts that we have concerning evolution. It would simply mean that we have to expand our theories to include the new data. I may be rambling here, because it is late, but if you have any more specific questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harks Posted August 1, 2006 #73 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I...couldn't really understand what you said... What don't you understand? I was just suggesting that maybe the Earth is one big experiment, that has both characteristics of evolution and Creationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted August 1, 2006 #74 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I see. Well, considering all the different varieties of Creationism out there, I suppose that is not only possible, but inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now