Evolution for dummies (updated)
Created on: October 5th, 2006
I'm serious, it's all evolution is about. The only sensible way to deny this is to deny gene theory, and denying gene theory is retarded anyway.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.79) | 72 | 8 | 139 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5,765 |
Inbound links:
theres a difference between this type of evolution (that i beleive in--survival of the fittest) and the type of evolution where new species evolve from old ones (which i do not beleive in). I beleive that a stupid moron who dies is doing a favor to society, but I do not beleive that his genetic mutations are helping us move ahead as a new species. also, you have crabs. and 5 for the c*ckthirsty @ da end. ^_^
There's no such thing as "micro" and "macro" evolution. Those are false terms invented by creationists. What they don't understand is that lots of small changes over time add up to large changes. Using this kind of logic, a creationist wouldn't believe that if you keep travelling one inch at a time, you'll eventually go a mile. It's a false distinction where none exists. If any creationist can explain to me (via PM, since I'm too lazy to keep checking the comments) why evolution would suddenly stop after
Once again: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MICRO OR MACRO EVOLUTION. No reputable scientist uses those terms. It's a false distinction created by creationists to try to confuse the issue. Geologists don't say that a lot of 'micro - erosion' won't add up to 'macro - erosion' so the grand canyon couldn't possibly have been formed by a river.
"However, microevolution and macroevolution both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in allele frequencies, and the scientific controversy is only about how those changes predominantly occur. Either way macroevolution uses the same mechanisms of change as those already observed in microevolution." However there is the problem of speciation at which point one member cannot reproduce with a member of its former species... so there have to be at least 2 to propogate their new species...
Of course to say that it is a problem is not to say that it is wrong. Also my opinion about micro and macro evolution are meaningless because I study philosophy and economics and I don't really need to study the issue to determine whether or not creationism is right or wrong because it is ridiculous and has no scientific or rational basis.
i'm afraid the creationists have this one right. The process of a population of crabs learning, through natural selection, to see and to not be on fire, only gets us from a sh*tty crab to a good crab. Biogenesis still needs to be explained away (the vastness of space and the Anthropic Principle are good for this) and also the process of speciation. We haven't managed to evolve, in a lab, two separate branches from the same family tree which are no longer able to reproduce with one another.
Because rationality works inside its own mechanism even if you believe that all of rationality is essentially false. Rationally, If P then Q means that given P, Q follows. God may say that this is meaningless because Q does not follow from P whether rationality says it does or not, but that doesn't make it rationally incorrect. Thus, you can have a rational argument on everything in the universe and say "or God could say that it's wrong."
To answer spazdor... go to speciation on wikipedia because... you might change your opinion. And that's not even from looking very deep. In all honesty, if you want to debate the validity of evolution, GO RESEARCH IT and talk to some people that know. Also, don't go looking for strawmen. Find the best, most accurate, and most reputable sources and try and prove them wrong. Although, you'll need a hefty scientific background even to start disproving...
Also, Korf - you've got an interesting thing there. Can God make a contradiction true? I say no - not even an omnipotent being can say P ^ ~P and be right. He can't draw a square circle (at least not on a Euclidean piece of paper) and he can't tell you that Q does not follow from P after you've proven that it does; the best he can do is make P universally false and make fun of you for having proven a tautology.
BTW if I was faced with any hard problem, I would never say "well i'm right cuzza GOD!!" I would always try to find a rational explanation--but for the creation of the universe, I dont have to have one, because if B follows A, but B is the only thing rational, then A doesn't have to be, A is supiernatural and can be C for all I care.
I find it interesting that you use other YTMNDS as your arguments.
But I digress--remember, anything and everything you hear with "Christianity" on the label isn't necessarily what I. and most Christians beleive. I still have to take into account what this other YTMND says, make my own opinion on it, but I never even heard of it before a couple of weeks ago. (and i'm sure you didn't either).
It's funny how athiests always slap everything they hear about Christianity and Christians and God into one group,
Let's say I have two options when I die, and so do you--
IA (i'm right and there is a heaven): I die and go to heaven
IB (i'm wrong, and there is no heaven): I die and do nothing for eternity.
YOUA (you're right and there is no heaven): you die and do nothing for eternity.
YOUB (you're wrong and there is a heaven): you die and go to hell.
Which is the better security option? The only bad choice here is if someone doesn't beleive, and then they are wrong. all other choices are Good or just "whatever."
OK, good job pulling Pascal's Wager out on us... Hole #1: Belief is not voluntary. I would have just as much trouble choosing to believe in God as you would have choosing not to. Hole #2: All that demonstrates is that it may (contingent on your first God proposition) be more *useful* to believe in God than not to. It doesn't argue for or against the actual *existence* of God.
The reason we don't see T-rex sized crab C's is that there isn't the resources to support them. Also, the size change over time. However, bigger crabs might be slower and have a harder time getting away from predators, and get eaten. And crabs don't have machine guns for one of three reasons: 1. They don't kick enough *ss 2. It's a complex structure that would require too much energy to sustain. 3. Because it just hasn't happened yet, as mutations are totally random.
Don't ever bring up Pascal's wager again. It's retarded. Also, I'll prove why mine is the safe bet and yours is stupid. If there is no god, I get to live my life and then die. If there is a god, I get to live my life and then die. I win! Also, if there is a god and he is merciful he will send me to heaven regardless. Also, he wouldn't be so vain as to send me to hell because I didn't have blind faith in him. Win for me! I win either way by simply following rationality.
Also I must admit when you said "He
always was--do you think that makes sense? nope. But I beleive it's true." I thought you were an atheist and were mocking faith as is so easy and fun... and so I mocked it by mocking whetstone which is also fun. Unfortunately you're not and so my mockery fell on unwanting ears.
Also, evolution is NOT an argument against the existence of a sentient god. It's just the truth, and an argument against christian creationnism. Like I often say, I'd rather see christians believing the unscientific intelligent design theory than christians believing the retarded creationnist theory.
Evolving a crab with a machinegun arm would require a steady source of sulphur, elemental carbon, and saltpeter or equivalent dietary source of ozidizing agents. If there are no such sources, then the machinegun crabs will die out because they can't get enough food to make ammo. Perhaps on the evolutionary path to machinegunnery, there are more stops; more sophisticated eyes with which to aim the guns, larger body masses with which to metabolize the presumably large animals that machineguncrabs
"and since
when has any observed mutation been benificial to a species?" Since when does this have anything to do with evolution? Observation is not the only type of proof! Also, not all mutations that last are beneficial. Some are detrimental. However, if they are not detrimental enough to make the species fail at surviving, then they last on. It's not an exact science. Also, if a crab develops a machine gun arm and bad acne, then all future crabs have acne. Sucks for them.
Also I have no reason to believe that god exists or that Jesus was divine or that god does not exist or that it is impossible to prove that god does not exist. Also, I have good reason to believe that it is quite possible for everything that all religions, and especially Christianity, stand for can be propogated through use of fear tactics and appeals to things that make no logical sense.
In fact many religions are propogated on similar grounds to Christianity and they all claim to be true and yet they cannot all be true. Thus, I have a rational dilemma. Which to choose? Thus, I stand at square one, weak atheism, and I'm open to all possibilities. Unfortunately I am well versed in fallacies and scare tactics and red herrings and strawmen arguments and I do not believe in faith. Period. Faith is a flawed concept.
But if you can rationally prove that your religion has a basis or give some reason other than blind faith to believe that there exists something that you categorize as supernatural (and nothing supersupernatural) then I will not jump to the conclusion that there is something on faith alone. This jump is made by Soren Kierkegaard who believed that it was irrational to believe in God but he did so anyways. I do not. He's a genius and you are not, thus you cannot convince me.
Well, Lofi, you're disputing Pascal's wager by changing the premises of the argument. If you accept the (ludicrous) premise that there is either a) no God, or b) a God exactly as described by the King James Bible (gotta specify - different Bibles say different stuff) then there is either a finite payoff for living a fun but Godless life, or an infinite payoff for living a pious and boring life. If the chance of God is nonzero, then your utility is indeed maximized by going to church.
It's too bad that your premise is ridiculously flawed. First, I have no reason to believe that there is infinite anything to be gained. It is not from a reputable source. Want me to disprove it? I just read a book that says that if I believe in god a supersupernatural god who supercedes all other supers to his supersupernaturalism will give me twice as much pain and suffering as the aggregate of all possible gains of any other possibilites. Thus, I should for sure not believe in him.
Now, the real answer of course is that I have no reason to believe that it is an actual possibility that god exists. To say that something is logically possible and to say that something is actually possible are two different things. It is logically possible that I am a hamster. I can't logically prove to you that I am in fact a person as all I have is experience from my senses. I could be a hamster. You are a hamster and I eat hamsters for breakfast. See how ludicrous this all is?
Also give me some reason as to why it is ludicrous that there is no god. I've never read or heard anything that once made me feel like there was any reason for a god to exist. All I've ever experienced would make it seem that whatever God there would be could've done a hell of a lot better job. There is no evil in the universe greater than the Designated Fat Friend, and no just god would ever allow for the DFF's existence.
Also I think it is important to note that the non-existence of god is not a premise but a default. In order for someone to assert that something exists they must provide reason for it. Cogito ergo sum. I exist. Either a.) prove to me, rationally, that a god exists or b.) I have no reason to believe that god exists. I will not make the positive assertion that there is no god, as this is ludicrous (Bertrand Russell says that it is logically impossible to prove it, and I agree with his argument).
So, the premise that there is no god and that there is god both need to be proved. This is not to say that atheism is wrong, it is to say that strong atheism is wrong. Strong atheism has nothing to do with weak atheism. All things have the burden of proof and, unless proven to _________, we do not assume that they ___________.
I'm beginning to think it's not your sites, it's just you... nothing I've seen from you has been funny! And your obsessive commenting on your own sites denotes hints of basement-dwelling. I'm only commenting because I'm sure you're on Spy and are going to come downvote all my sites now. Quit trying to shove a POV down anyone's throat, this is a comedy site. If you want to troll biblethumpers, take it elsewhere. Slideshow, fail.
◄I'll give you 2 for presentation, but a) You don't even understand evolution yourself as you are equating it with natural selection. Sorry, but most creationists believe in natural selection. It's just something that happens over time. what creationists reject is the notion that your crab will one day manage to become a tiger or a human. b) you misspelled adeu and c) the core fundamental of evolution is that all animals come from a common ancestor- so you might have to completely redo your YTMND.►
"b) you misspelled
adeu and c) the core fundamental of evolution is that all animals come from
a common ancestor- so you might have to completely redo your YTMND.►"
b.) adieu means whetstone is an idiot
c.) Natural Selection is the process by which evolution occurs. Also, there are several strains of original cellular objects that became what we know as life and life-like objects. You can learn about them in middle school with the rest of us.
It could be that all creatures in the animal kingdom come from one common ancestor, as the genetic data would imply, but they could have also come from two similar starting points which would give the same statistical impression. Evolution is not in any way tied to the notion that all animals come from the same common ancestor, but there is plenty of evidence to support this contention and it is likely true. Read a book, as I have told you many times, whetstone.
As a hardcore conservative Christian I say you get a 4 cause this site was very funny, and well presented, and made valid arguments. I'm not sure if I believe in evolution or not, and frankly I don't think it really matters if it's true or not, as I don't see it contradicting the Bible. However, your site does seem to imply that we shouldn't see any blind animals at all except in extremely rare mutation cases.
Also, I don't think the difference between humans and all other animals (the ability to think, reason, and question things, among others) can be explained by the slow process of mutations. Humans have something animals don't have which science cannot explain or has yet to explain by genetic differences. Thus there's no reason to think that a monkey could be born "mutated" in such a way that it could use logic or reason.
Well, I had the responses I wanted for this YTMND. As for you Gendo, I'd just like to remind you that the process took millions of years. One smart monkey wasn't born right there out of the blue, it's that the smarter ones would be the ones survivng. Over time, and a LONG time, the monkeys eventually get smarter and start thinking more clearly. I'd also like to remind people one thing: I'm not trying to convince you that it's true. It's just that I'm tired of people throwing this idea around without...
...having any idea what they're talking about. Evolution resumes itself to what I said in the animation, and a bit in the comments. Other things have been added later (like the common ancestor theory which whetstone mentionned, and I agree that the common ancestor theory, though nice, has several flaws), but in essence, this is what evolution is all about. Evolution is about small changes over time appearing because of natural selection. It DOESN'T prove humans have evolved from another species of...
...primates, it DOESN'T prove that we all evolved from a common ancestor, it DOESN'T prove anything but that organisms change over time, and it DOESN'Y deny divine intervention. I didn't include the boring debate over the definition of species in the animation either because I wanted to keep it simple. I think I'm going to post one about intelligent design too just to be fair. Though intelligent design is unscientific, it makes more sense than creationnism, and should replace it as the religious theory.
I understand that the theory says it took a long long time, but my point was that what humans have over monkeys isn't just an improvement like being smarter or taller or whatever. It is an entirely new concept that animals don't have, and I believe it is a line that can be drawn between those who have reason and those who don't; so nothing can be made that sort of has a first step to reason but doesn't quite have it yet.
The problem with saying "what humans have over monkeys isn't just an improvement like being
smarter or taller or whatever" is that what they have different is measurable. It's all in the DNA. If someone thinks that it takes a big leap to get from a monkey to a human, they need only look at the differences in our genome. 2% or something? Also arguing from ignorance typically doesn't prove anything...
"However, your
site does seem to imply that we shouldn't see any blind animals at all
except in extremely rare mutation cases." Natural selection doesn't determine the right mutations, it only determines what are left. It also, handily, determines that reproductive techniques that generate more genetic variation have a higher likelihood of generating beneficial allele combinations, especially in lesser forms of life (less advanced, more vulnerable to outside pressures).
One thing that is important to remember is that it doesn't determine what is right, only what it left. If you created the best species possible, it would have the highest possible likelihood for survival. However, that does not mean that if it were to evolve it would survive. If it were to evolve and then a roaming band of starving tigers were to roam by and devour them all... well then the world beat the odds.
Natural selection is a proven method of propogating beneficial allele frequencies in the actual living world. Proven not as in proven like Stanley Steamer but proven as it in actually happens. Because it happens, and because we analyze the genomes of various life forms and we see that they are extremely similar (and we can statistically trace their likely evolutionary patterns to a degree and know with absolute certainty the amount of uncertainty) and thus we conclude, based on natural selection...
that we likely evolved from lower life forms. We didn't evolve from the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee evolved from something which, far back enough, was some species who developed into two different species. These two species evolved for millions of years and now we are at the point where we are. "Humans have something animals
don't have which science cannot explain or has yet to explain by genetic
differences." Well, we can tell you the exact genetic differences...
and the only step left is to a.) analyze which genes contribute to which functions and b.) determine how the hell the brain works at all. The second step is the key, really, and it will probably take a lot longer than the first. The brain is a complicated organ. Also, dolphins have big brains, but they are incredibly stupid. Read up on it. Most of their brain is dedicated to keeping their brain warm, and only a very small portion is actually neurons dedicated to though.
While you're on the right track, I think you should add a Crab C, with a slight difference from Crab A. It would get the point across more. Honestly, I'll be glad thousands upon thousands of years from now (if we're even still around) when humans are clearly different then they were in the present day so we can just put this to f*cking rest.
Also animals are able to behave at the intelligence level of a child, so in order to understand what makes a human different from an animal it really is important to determine what makes a human different from a human. That is, what faculties in the brain develop from infancy to adulthood, how do they develop, and how do the mechanisms that determine these faculties operate... Neuroscience is really complicated, though, and some of the stuff is just madness. That'd be an interesting ytmnd...
"I'll be glad thousands upon thousands of years from now (if we're
even still around) when humans are clearly different then they were in the
present day so we can just put this to f*cking rest." Well, we don't have any natural selection anymore, but we will have genetic therapy and things of that nature so we can create uber-humans or Barry Bondsian creatures (without roids) as I would call them.
And yes, some scientists do use the terminology of micro and macroevolution; it's not a conspiracy of the creationists, but more of an attempt to make a distinction between the testable, observable changes of gene heritability, and a divergence of (mostly fossil) traits significant enough to be termed a speciation event. Check out Eldredge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium, or the mechanisms described in the process of exaptation for some good food-for-thought.
.. can we just all agree that saying were on this site, and saying I'd be really surprised if any of you had a ph.d in biology, that more then likely it isn't just Creationists or Evolutionists that are getting it wrong/don't know sh*t, but the fact that we ALL have no idea what the f*ck were talking about? K Thx.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link