Thread: Do You Believe That Evolution Is True ?

If we're talking about Evolution: Then Seismosaur's signiture is the way to go!

Edit - Transformers, Robot's in Disquise! Now that's evolution. Aha, that reminds me of The Master from Doctor Who: Watching Telletubbies, "Televisions in their stomach, now that's evolution".

Originally Posted by SilverZero

So, who believes in abiogenesis, then? Isn't that the starting point of evolution? Or do evolutionists just believe it back to the first reproducing organisms, and then don't worry about what was before that?

It's not a matter of 'believing in it' back to the first organism - evolution only applies to biological systems. How the first organism arose is the question of a biochemistry, not biology.

I find it very difficult to accept that the first cells on Earth randomly developed the capacity to reproduce successfully. I wouldt think they would have had to come into being with that capacity, or else they would have died out before reproducing and passing on the genes necessary to commence the replication of their genetic information (however that got there).

Replication has been demonstrated in the lab with very simple systems example

How is it obvious that dinosaurs existed before humans? It's only obvious if that's how you interpret the evidence.

You'd have to 'interpret' pretty hard to close the ~64million year gap reported by all the evidence.

I know this is going to sound childish and uneducated to all of you with your big scientific thereoys and such but I just can't accept evolution. There are to many big gaping holes. Firstly what are the chances that all life and the aragement of mass and energy needed to create that life and the complex laws governing the planet and such were just random happenings. It seems to me that it is more likely that a higher being made things. secondly, as someone mentioned and you guys conviently ignored, what are the chances that the first organisms appeared and had the natural processes needed to reproduce? Thirdly, what are the chances that algee developed into humans? how does somthing go from being single celled to having more cells than I can count? please, answer my questions, but don't stone me to death. I guess it's just the chances of it all that get me. Also lol to the jesus horse.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

what are the chances that the first organisms appeared and had the natural processes needed to reproduce?

Not much. That's why the ones that didn't have the needed processes didn't reproduce and no longer exist. The one which did happen to have that process reproduced and made more of itself. It's not hard to understand, it's effectively natural selection - the organisms which do not reproduce obviously will not last. If one develops the ability to reproduce, then it can live on and the future generations will develop further, more improved abilities.

But if the whole world developed from one organism what are the chances that one organism would have reproductive capabilitys? Not arguing, just questioning, this is your chance to educate me.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

But if the whole world developed from one organism what are the chances that one organism would have reproductive capabilitys? Not arguing, just questioning, this is your chance to educate me.

You ask an unanswerable question. I will return with an unanswerable question. Why did God make us reproduce with mates, when he could have easily made us asexual without the trouble of finding a mate?

Please don't say its because Adam was bored.

hmm, thats a good point but I have an answer. God believes in love and oneness, mating and reproducing is the ultimate way showing of oneness and love. therefore god would prefer beings who reproduce through mating.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

But if the whole world developed from one organism what are the chances that one organism would have reproductive capabilitys? Not arguing, just questioning, this is your chance to educate me.

No problem. Think of it this way - you have a hundred thousand robots, and they each do something different. One robot goes in circles, one jumps around, one turns CO2 into O2 and Carbon, etc. etc. One of these robots, however, makes other robots - that are exactly the same as it is. That means that the robots it makes will make other robots which will make other robots, on and on and on.

Now you leave these robots there for a few hundred years, and come back later. All of the original robots will have rusted, broken, and decayed. However, there will still exist the descendants of that one robot who made more of himself.

The point of that whole analogy is that there could have been plenty of 'first organisms', but they didn't all necessarily make more of themselves. Only those who successfully reproduced would have surviving offspring after they themselves decayed and died. In this way, it's not so much an issue of how likely that first organism was to have reproductive abilities, it's simply that any organism that didn't couldn't possibly pass on its genes, and so died off very quickly without a trace.

ok that makes sense to me, it didn't change the way I feel but it made sense to me. I am actually more educated in evolution than I sound so I apologize if I annoyed or disgusted you. I'll think about what you said Gnome, thanks for the polite answer with no sarcastic remarks ( not that I'm saying you were known for giving sarcastic remarks or unpolite answers).

Both of you are right, it's really not an unanswerable question. 2 sets of genes in offspring provides a new result different than the parents, which may live or die, therefore driving survival of the fittest.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I know this is going to sound childish and uneducated to all of you with your big scientific thereoys and such but I just can't accept evolution. There are to many big gaping holes. Firstly what are the chances that all life and the aragement of mass and energy needed to create that life and the complex laws governing the planet and such were just random happenings. It seems to me that it is more likely that a higher being made things. secondly, as someone mentioned and you guys conviently ignored, what are the chances that the first organisms appeared and had the natural processes needed to reproduce? Thirdly, what are the chances that algee developed into humans? how does somthing go from being single celled to having more cells than I can count? please, answer my questions, but don't stone me to death. I guess it's just the chances of it all that get me. Also lol to the jesus horse.

1. What "big gaping holes"?
2. Chance doesn't matter, it was slim, but it DID happen, you can't argue that.
3. I still don't see why. Everything can and did happen without a creator...
4. Umm... You do know how single-celled organisms reproduce, right? They divide. This process wasn't immediate, no, probably, but it did come about, the cells that couldn't divide died out.
5. ...wow... Algae couldn't have, hun. Because algae co-exists with us, this argument is as usless as Monkeys > Humans
6. Mutations causing symbiosity between cells that ultimatley make up larger organisms.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

But if the whole world developed from one organism what are the chances that one organism would have reproductive capabilitys? Not arguing, just questioning, this is your chance to educate me.

And all airplanes came from one single airplane .

You're missing some big stuff here. Do you honestly think that only ONE organism arose at a time? That's absurd. I'm sure there were plenty.

This 'Lucid Boy' is quite popular on this thread...

Originally Posted by Jdeadevil

This 'Lucid Boy' is quite popular on this thread...

He is popular, yes, because he is so ignorant of things right under his nose... :-\

Most of the things that people are quoting are different.

If you take notice evolution happens every day on a much smaller scale. If you also take weather, climate, space etc. they all have small scale versions going on all the time.
It just makes logical sense that things evolve. They have to, in an order to survive in their environment. Take all these small examples and stretch that over a large enough time line and profound changes are eminent.

It does , to me anyway, denounce a god. We were created to evolve.

When we speak of evolving from one species to the next??? I don't know.
That is getting more illogical and more speculative and then you begin to denounce specifics of the teachings of most religion.

It is almost like there should be two categories.
I can certainly see the argument that we did not evolve from as crustacean or a chimpanzee, but I can't really see how anyone can argue against the concept of evolution/evolving.

Ever seen that advert of evolution.. I don't remember what alcohol it was for?

Guinness

That's the one, I think.

Anyone who doubts that random mutations and natural selection can result in useful developments in entities should read this article:
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=870

Hell, EVERYONE should read that article, it's awesome and proves that the basic premises of evolution work.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Anyone who doubts that random mutations and natural selection can result in useful developments in entities should read this article:
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=870

Hey, thanks for that post. Great read!

It reminds me of something I read long ago (wish I could remember the details). It had to do with coming up with a successful chess-playing algorithm by allowing each algorithm to have an offspring with a mild mutation in its internal weights and sub-goals, and to have different offspring simply play each other many games of chess. The best scores of each generation would survive to the next.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Anyone who doubts that random mutations and natural selection can result in useful developments in entities should read this article:
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=870

Hell, EVERYONE should read that article, it's awesome and proves that the basic premises of evolution work.

Come over here! *Streches arm out as a snake comes out of his wrist*

Did you know that Darwin was actually a very religious, Christian man that was upset by his findings? But he accepted them because he was a scientist.

"I love my friend" "But back off, man! I'm a scientist"

Originally Posted by skysaw

Hey, thanks for that post. Great read!

It reminds me of something I read long ago (wish I could remember the details). It had to do with coming up with a successful chess-playing algorithm by allowing each algorithm to have an offspring with a mild mutation in its internal weights and sub-goals, and to have different offspring simply play each other many games of chess. The best scores of each generation would survive to the next.

Eeeeks.
Judging by playsite.com I may not make it to see my coming of age.
I think the chess players cheat though. '~'

Good article. BTW