Re: Evolution?
The disctnction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is made primarily by creationists. The only difference between them is the amount of time involved. If you prove micro you can also prove macro.
Re: Evolution?
Are u kidding me? Even biologists diffrentiate between micro and macro.
Re: Evolution?
evolution is stupidity....
there is no reason that while humans developed such high level of intelligence, no other animal could evolve into such intelligence....
no animal has been found to have the intellect level of humans in recorded history and we havent seen anything change even in our times....
its all good for science fiction movies/novels....
Re: Evolution?
^ And it can be said that your beliefs are all good for fairytales and bedtime stories since there is less scientific proof of your view than evolution.
How easily you dismiss other thoughts. You know exactly who is going to hell. Which hadith are to be followed. Who mughals liked to sleep with. To whom you are allowed to be married. Why you even imagine you know every sexual trick to please your partner! What a burden it must be to know everything as you do. No wonder gupshup has made you mod, you are an unmatched genious. I am in awe.
Re: Evolution?
I don’t think that the creation of many different beings implies “mistakes.” In fact, the idea of the missing link could indicate divine intervention. We have a great variety of life, couldn’t God have intended to create creatures that have many similarities but also subtle differences, as they adapt to different environments?
Re: Evolution?
Evolution BECOMES ordered after going through a high state of disorder.. Its sorta like having a bag with a single square shaped HOLE, FILLED with nothing but triangles, but for a SINGLE square. Shake that bag up long enough and the square will fall out.
Same thing with the universe. Its started out as nothing more then disorder, molecules combined to form gasses, particles combined randomly to form larger particles which eventually became planets. And eventually out of that chaos, came the ordered universe as we know it.
SAME with evolution. It is through the random and chaotic mutations that order evolved.
Same thing with the cell… There WAS disorder INITIALLY, but, disordered systems gave way, through mutation, to more ORDERED systems which survived.
ORDER came through chance. Think of it as the plane. Early planes were inefficient, but then through inovation (mutation) we had new technology and better efficiency which evolved into the highly technical and efficient machine of today.
And is our current biological world as ordered AS it could be? Just because the system of today seems highly order and efficient, one has to admit that it could be EVEN more ordered and efficient. So order is just a relative term… In a couple of million years, these cells may have evolved even further and one would assume that the cell model of today was more innefficient and less ordered.
Re: Evolution?
so who creates bird flu aids virus that affect humans?
Re: Evolution?
The reason why other animals didnt evolve more inteligence is explainable, not science fiction. One among many theories is that Humans lacked the ability to cope with predators and demands of basic survival in a changing environment ( and yes environments do change). Perhaps they had competition, they may have encountered an environment that required adaptions to survive. Barring speed, agility, natural weapons like claws, size etc, this adaptation had to be something else. Those proto-humans that had even a small advantage in terms of intelect were able to perform better and out compete their rivals. Pehaps they were able to fashion crude weapons that gave them an advantage. So while their less intelligent compatriots died out or became irrelevent, these more intelligent ones reproduced, passed on their intelligence gene and so on and so forth till we got modern man.
Re: Evolution?
Ok, jee.. I admit Fossils arent the end of this debate.. But then what about Viruses? Do they not evolve and change to adapt ot thier environment?
What about the fact that we share something in the order of 98 percnet of our genes with the great apes, especially the chimps? Same with other creatures who share a HUGE amount of thier gene’s with their ancestors?
Whales have more in comman with Mammals then they do with Fish? Why is this?
AND
What about the creatures that HAVE evolved over the many thousands of years that humans have been around?
DOG are the perfect example of evolution in action. Most dog breeds came about through selective, but not natural process, but there are some breeds that did.
There IS a dog, and im not making this up so you will have to take my word for it, that evolved without direct Human selection, but indirectly because of human so is the best example of how evolution works.
There is a type of dog, its a prized dog that is known for its speed, looks like a grey hound only it has fur and its body is engineered for fast long distance runniing. It has a long nose to gather and warm air (also pointy so aerodynamic), it has a huge chest which can take in as much oxygen as possible, it has long legs, etc.. Shaped like a Cheetah… Now how did it develop?
Researchers have found that a dog in ancient mesopatamia or some where around there, was used for hunting wild animals. A hunter would take a group of dogs out with him to hunt small game. One of the dogs preformed better then the others. This dog was rewarded with food at the relative expnese of the other dogs who werent so quick. This dog eventually grew stronger and was able to breed, so he passed his speed gene to the next genration (a physical phenotype, that provided for better running ability). The offspirng were also fast and the process was rpeated over thousands of years until you have dog that is COMLETELY diffeerent from the initial animal… And that first animal only got the speed gene per chance.
If this isnt evolution at work I dont know what is.
And yes its a theory, and barring time travel, it will probably remain as such…
But if a preponderance of evidence is enough to convict a criminal then so is the case with evolution.
Religion on the other hand is not even a threory.. It has NO bases, so I hope you arent suggesting that we accpet Religion as a fact despite this one glaring ommision (ANY scentific backing) from the creationist take on the world.
No one says refute religion, but must we burry our heads in the sand every time scinece (reality?) poses a challenge?
Sorry for the long responce, i will let it go now:)
Re: Evolution?
Viruses fall under the category of MICRO-evolution, which is a fact. Like I said, the theory works great for species with high fecundity and low lifespan, etc. Not for species with low offspring number and long lifespans.
Adaptation to the environment is just one aspect of the evolution theory. Just because adaptation is a fact, does not mean macro-evolution IS.
Sharing genetic code is an INDICATION that MAYBE evolution might have been at work. However, it doesn’t indicate direction of evolution. So perhaps, humans came first, and some monkey groups are an offshoot of the human lineage? Also, the problem of convergent evolution also comes in. Do we have similar genetic codes because we had a common ancestor, or because we have similar environments and require similar adaptations to these environments? Or perhaps did God create chimpanzees first, as the Greatest Biotech Company, and use them to perfect his Human model version 2.3 (that was my attempt at humor)? Or did evolution actually happen as Darwin described, and God was the one who created evolution? etc etc.
Whales having more in common with Mammals: Again, the theory at work is evolution. Yes. However, we can’t know for certain, because we just don’t have enough fossils to give a continuous record. Fossil research is, for a great part, guesswork. Its possible there was some convergent evolution involved. Convergent evolution is probably one of the biggest problems that the evolution theory faces, IMHO.
Creatures that we know in human history to have evolved, in terms of SPECIATION, are limited to MICRO-evolution experiments.
Remember, there is the idea of evolution, and then there is another idea of speciation. Human evolution doesn’t just say we adapt to our environment. It also talks about our speciation. That evolution LEADS to speciation. On a macro-scale, we just don’t for certain that this is what happened. That’s why its not a law. In fact, most scientific ideas remain at theories, and almost never become “Laws”. So I don’t see why proponents of evolution get their panties in a twist so often. Its not factual. Its a theory. But some people chose to believe the theory to the point that they believe its a fact. That is the perogative of the believer. This will never ever change the scientific fact that evolution still remains a theory, and will remain so for human evolution theory at least until the “missing link” is found.
As for your dog, the newly evolved dog you describe, whether naturally or unnaturally, is still a DOG. Just because you see evolution at work there, again, does not mean that evolution caused human speciation the way it is purported to have caused it. Like I said. Monkeys could have come AFTER human beings. We just need more fossils and the Missing Link to put things together.
Fikar not. Many a PhD are busting their chops and living thankless lives to prove your belief to be true so that you can come onto this GS board, revive this thread, and do a cyber-victory dance.
Re: Evolution?
While searching for something else, I stumbled across the following. I thought I’d share although I’ve no idea if it’s even relevant (I didn’t bother carefully reading through the posts): Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective
Re: Evolution?
Who made the early planes? That goes into the territory of “irreducible complexity.” Unbeknownstly, you have just agreed with the proponents of ID Theory.
I really wanted to see some cogent argument againt my claim of TOE violating the 2nd law of thermo. You haven’t provided any. Your** oversimplified** comparison of evolution to squares and triangles only makes my conviction stronger, that evolution is indeed a theory, and nothing more.
If I claimed that since sub-atomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) atoms have mass–like a tennis ball has mass–they should behave like the tennis ball which follows classical newtonian laws of gravity, then I would be oversimplifying. Electrons dont follow Newtonian mechanics, but rather they abide by the laws of quantum mechanics. The last time I checked, a tennis ball was NOT limited by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
Einstein probably said it best: make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
I will leave it at that, PP1.
Have a good one.
PCG, it is pointless to debate with people who have very little knowldge on the subject. Excellent post, BTW. :k:.
Re: Evolution?
seminole, were u really expecting to be the mod for this forum????
why does it burn u so much that i am the mod here????
i told u before, if u have a problem refer to the admins instead of crying about it every other post....
Re: Evolution?
You are soo good at modding, Mughal dude!
Re: Evolution?
thanx 
Re: Evolution?
Seriously . Why don't you answer up to Seminole's response and stop calling things "stupid" when you have no arguments, shmuck?
Re: Evolution?
Don't worry armughal, I have no designs on your job. But if I did, I would treat posters with respect instead of issuing fatwas as if I knew everything in the world. No one does, and frankly you seem to know less than most because your views are so limited to what you* think* is right. I would use the position to question, direct and moderate, not as a forum to disperse my myopic, closed-minded views, telling others that their views are stupid. People who aren't moderators don't even do that, even to your fatuous posts.
So please stop referring to my responses to your inane posts as 'crying'. It is nothing more than pointing out the 'truth', something you attempt to do with every one of your holier-than-thou posts.
Re: Evolution?
Yaar ok..
But mutations are micro-level aswell, they changes in our gentic make up… , mispairing etc. But these mutation effect production of proteins, which effects the make up of cells etc, which contitute the make up of the Human on the Macro level. So what happens at the micro level will also effect the macro level.
Sharing genetic makeup with other species is not a defintie agreed, but then the a 98 percent match between two different species is very unlikely even if the two species were exposed to the same environment; there are species whith similar adapations with completely different genetic codes for those phenotypes. if your assesment were correct, then there would be no way to tell the difference between a pair of species, one being from say Sahara, the other from the American desert. Both species have similar environment and similar adaptation but they stil dont share the same genes. Then there is also the fact that we can literally follow a map that dictates our lineage. For example, We sHare a small amount of DNA with all species, even more with mammals, even more with members of our family, such as the monkeys, we share even more with the great apes… This all point in the direction of evolution.. Meaning we started out as one speciea which then diverged into many and those that are the most recent divergence have the most in comman with us. This order tells indicates the order aswell, in terms of what creatures evolved first and which second.
And creatures that evolve within human history are an example of Macro level evolution.
Speciation, is the “The development of one or more species from an existing species.” This occurs because of natural selection…
Convergent evolution can be a difficult hurdle agreed, but it also makes some sense and isnt necesarilly an impediment to the evolution theory. It simply states that a certain phenotype is coded for in two taxonomically diffferent species. This doesnt mean they share the same gene to code for that gene… I will give you this one..
The human lineage is VERY complex, adimitadly.I dont think there is a missing link… Many dont believe we are decended of Neanderthals infact but an earlier species that diverged into many others. Sme with other species.
So no, evolution isnt a fact but a theory, but then most things in science are a theory like you said.. But if we are willing to ignore Evolution simply because it simply a throery why must we blindly follow religion which offers absolutely no proof at all?
Phd’s may jump around trying to prove things, but religious people simply refuse logic… Why should anyone bury their head in the ground when science poses a challenege? Evolution may be a throry but its a exremely viable theory, which contradicts in many ways the beliefs of religion, but istead of taking on the challeneg, religous people simply point out that its not a fact and live securely that way…
GOD FORBID ITS HSOULD EVER BECOME ANYTHING OTHER THEN A THEORY!
Re: Evolution?
If I may, at the risk of being BANNED! I agree with Seminole.. A moderator moderates, not dictates:)
Re: Evolution?
Yaar, The plane is a simplified explanation of evoliutin because making it any more complex would be to difficult for you to grasp… A plane is just an example of how like mutations, things evolve to become something new. And im sorry if I cant provided you with thesis on this issue, but i REALLY am sorry if I cant spend hours debating this ridiculous notion of yours. And im not talking about who creates the first cell etc.. Im talking about regardless of who created the first cell, its EVOLVED through mutations into the species of today. Useing 2nd law of thermodynamics, it doesnt negate evolution, and I dont even think it actually applies… Things in random motion (perhaps on the atomic level but not when were talking about genes and adaptation etc) eventually form some degree of order… You cant deny this… The mutations that occur do so RANDOMLY, but because certain circumstances exist which demand order, these random mutations migrate into the realm of order.
Im sorry if I made the case to simple for your oversized intelect, but this isnt rocket science, its just logic…
Our genes mutate… They either provide us a means of survival or cause our extinction, do this over and over and eventually you haqve a whole new species.. How does this not fit in with the 2nd law? Am I really the one who doesnt understand the issue:)? On my part, im finished indulging your pseudo intelecutual ramblings…