This thread is now about Evolution

Zero777

Zero777

Middle Eastern Federation

Discuss, video explains all.
 
Re: ACE Science Books Disproves Evolution with Monsters

Well considering how the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist I don't think this is credible.

EDIT: Also very few scientists actually think the Loch Ness Monster exists. This article is confusing a scientist with a cryptozoologist the difference is that cryptozoology is a form of pseudo-science much like Ufology. Also I find it odd that they refer to the scientific community when most scientists have nothing to do with this subject I mean do I really care if a chemist thinks the Loch Ness Monster exists fuck no because they don't study Dinosaurs. This is nothing more then blatant lies which will do nothing but humiliate those who were a part of it.
 
Re: ACE Science Books Disproves Evolution with Monsters

This video is just making a point by talking about a chemist. My opinion is this is incredibly stupid. It is these kind of arrogant, ignorant Christians that give us a bad reputation. Just because evolution isn't mentioned in the Holy Bible doesn't mean it doesn't exist, oh I don't know.... maybe it's mostly because of the reason that evolution was discovered in the 18TH CENTURY! Evolution is a proven and accepted theory; it can be proven logically and physically with evidence.
 
Re: ACE Science Books Disproves Evolution with Monsters

Neon Lights said:
Xia Wang said:
Evolution is a proven theory
Click to expand...
Really?
Click to expand...
Yes. Really.

The how, why, when, etc. varies from place to place, but pretty much the whole scientific community accepts some form of evolution.
 
Re: ACE Science Books Disproves Evolution with Monsters

Accepted is a better term
 
Re: ACE Science Books Disproves Evolution with Monsters

But it's a highly backed-up, proven theory over and over again.
 
To conclude on the science textbooks, this is just plain wrong and dumb.
 
Re: ACE Science Books Disproves Evolution with Monsters

Prince Gumball said:
Also, theories =/= scientific laws.
Click to expand...
In science, a theory is an explanation whose predictions have been backed up by experiments or other evidence. In colloquial terms, yes, what you're saying is correct, but in scientific terms, theories have to be exceptionally well backed up. I can say there are alien bases on the moon. That's a theory, but not a scientific theory, since there's no evidence for it. If evolution is false, what happened to Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Indohyus, Ambulocetus natans, and tons of other transitional fossils? They just dropped dead on their own accord?
 
I said it as a joke in the other thread, but let's turn this into an honest question for the blokes and sheilas that actually know how to science; could reincarnation be reconciled with evolution?
 
Yes, it could, since in a reincarnated form, one would likely contribute to that form's species, and over time, that species would gain and lose attributes in response to a changing environment, and if one is reincarnated to the same form multiple times (not sure if that's possible in reincarnation, since I'm not really an expert), the changes that occurred during the evolution process could be imparted to the reincarnated individual.
 
You can be reincarnated into the same realm multiple times, yes. Thanks for answering that, it's been gnawing at my mind for a while now.
 
Re: ACE Science Books Disproves Evolution with Monsters

Lemmy Koopa Fan said:
Prince Gumball said:
Also, theories =/= scientific laws.
Click to expand...
In science, a theory is an explanation whose predictions have been backed up by experiments or other evidence. In colloquial terms, yes, what you're saying is correct, but in scientific terms, theories have to be exceptionally well backed up. I can say there are alien bases on the moon. That's a theory, but not a scientific theory, since there's no evidence for it. If evolution is false, what happened to Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Indohyus, Ambulocetus natans, and tons of other transitional fossils? They just dropped dead on their own accord?
Click to expand...
That is true, but you saying aliens live on the moon is not a theory, it's a hypothesis.
 
I know 3 ways to prove evolution: Native Incas, Caucasians, and the Galapagos Island animals. Anybody care to listen?
 
General bob-omb said:
Li Xingke said:
I know 3 ways to prove evolution: Native Incas, Caucasians, and the Galapagos Island animals. Anybody care to listen?
Click to expand...
Sure, I would like to hear it.
Click to expand...
Galapagos island animals: The galapagos island was made from underwater volcanic activity so it is impossible for life to exist there. The only way it can exist there is if it migrated to the island, when it became habitable, and adapt to the environment.

Native Incas: If you ever look at a picture of a native inca today, you'll see them with bare feet. But Incas live high up in the mountains where it is super cold, they should suffer from hypothermia, but they don't. Thanks to evolution, Incas adapt to their environment. Native incas are super short people which requires less energy to keep them alive, than a normal height human being, and invest the energy on other things. Incas have more blood, stronger hearts, and larger lung capacity than normal humans which allow them to be comfortable in chilly conditions and they are able to survive the thin air altitude they live in. Thanks to these characteristics, Incas can run fast and long. Ancient Incan messengers of the empire would carry messeges between places by running, they were known to sprint a mile non-stop.

Caucasians: 1/3 of all caucasians are immune to AIDS. The reason: the 1/3 are missing the receptors on their cells that the AIDS virus use to attach itself to and infect the host. Evolution explains that this characteristic happened during the plague of the black death where some were immune to it for this reason and passed it down to their children. The black death was serious, it killed off 1/3 of the entire population of the continent of Europe. Only the lucky one that were capable of being infected, or that manage to avoid it by sanitation or just pure luck, and the obtain characteristic to fight this new enemy were able to survive.

And what the heck, I'll add one more since this one is more close to home for hopefully all of us:

Flu Shots: Do you know why you are given a flu shot every year? Because the flu virus is evolving and is immune to last years vaccine. No, it is not getting stronger, it is in fact evolving other ways and methods to infect a host. This is why a flu shot is administered every year.
 
Li, while most of your points remain logical, you seem to be mistaken. If you are referring to Macro evolution (many random good mutations that form a new species) then your claims are incorrect. I believe you are referring to Micro evolution, better known as adaption or acclimation, in which change occurs within the species and, at times, within a generation. Adaption does not require the random good mutations that (Macro) evolution requires, however. Considering all this, your 4 points are proof for adaption not (Macro) evolution. On another note, although your points are good, I have one reservation. In your first point, you described a migration to the islands. This is described in textbooks as "blown by a storm". The explanation would require many different base (non-adapted) animals, as the islands host a very diverse population (iguanas, turtles, and many different birds), to be blown by the wind, in the correct direction, hundreds of miles, and land on the islands (not the water) with out being killed by the impact. From these requirements, it seems a bit too improbable to be a sound explanation.
On yet another note, I will pose a question along with complementary statements regarding the fossil record.
In the below picture, a fossilised tree is protruding through several strata. How can this be? If these strata were formed over millions of years this tree should have decayed. However, if this tree was rapidly buried that would go against the theory of the million year old fossil record. Please give me your thoughts on this matter.
polystrate%20tree.jpg
 
General bob-omb said:
This is described in textbooks as "blown by a storm". The explanation would require many different base (non-adapted) animals, as the islands host a very diverse population (iguanas, turtles, and many different birds), to be blown by the wind, in the correct direction, hundreds of miles, and land on the islands (not the water) with out being killed by the impact. From these requirements, it seems a bit too improbable to be a sound explanation.
Click to expand...
I agree, I would think more that the fishes who were able to live in at the now habitable coast of the Galapagos islands evolved to the present day land animals or prehistoric turtles and amphibians evolved on that island. For the birds, simple migration where some birds decided to stay and adapt and the seeds of plants could easily been carried by the wind or on the birds' feathers.

polystrate%20tree.jpg
Click to expand...
You could suggest that it may had an immortal gene in it but died of suffocation, dehydration, or starvation. Another hypothesis I can suggest is that this tree is similar to the Pando tree found in the Fishlake National Forest where all the trees there are actually the same tree. They are all asexual clones of the original tree. This tree must of been at a bad spot to grow, but as the rock built up, it didn't die because it was fed and nourished by the other trees who all share the same root system which allowed the tree to grow, but when the forest died off, the tree in the rock formation soon did also.

On another note, last school year, in the biology class, we had to do a project on a topic related to biology, anything at all (as long as it is approved). My friend decided to investigate on the evolution of pokemon and how they change to adapt to their environment.
 
Would you consider a collection of micro-evolution macro-evolution? Not to wear the animal is a different class, but where it is a different species in the same genus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back