Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,942 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 712,758
Pageviews Today: 943,023Threads Today: 258Posts Today: 3,787
08:12 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Is evolution real?

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50792176
United States
08/03/2014 04:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Is evolution real?
Simple machines evolved into complex computers.

Doesn't mean it was spontaneous, and doesn't mean they weren't created.
pimperish pimpleton
User ID: 46214512
United States
08/03/2014 04:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Is evolution real?
Adapting is evolving.Look at todays generation due to their access to high tech and information has caused them to evolve to adapt to their surrounding...but the downfall of this is that it leaves them WISE BUT WEAK.
Quoting: pimperish pimpleton 46214512


This isn't speciation or genetic evolution.
Evolution doesn't have to be physical and the post doesn't specify GENETIC,but for an example look at physical traits among the world say 100 years ago and look how genetics has implanted certain agents to balance the playing field on the level of sports all the way to everyday living opposed to today.Genetic can be seen at the levels of animals and plant life as far back as prehistoric times and look how ancient cousins of remaining species have EVOLVED to become adaptable to these times they live in today.We would have eventually became the beings we are today but there was an unexplained UPGRADE to boost our process.Refined natural evolution takes roughly hundreds of thousands to millions of years if conventional science is correct.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57058081
United States
08/03/2014 05:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Is evolution real?
Does evolution really happening?
We have laboratory's to confirm it,and much,much more advanced technology since Darwin.
Did all life on Earth evolved from simple organisms in water?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60815410


Yes, multiple example...
1. Fish evolved from cats - catfish.
2. Bugs evolved from beds - bedbugs.
3. Chicken fingers evolved from chicken wings.
3. Flies evolved from horses.

Got it?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 60583345
Belgium
08/03/2014 08:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Is evolution real?
...


Ok quick recap on Nachos:

1) There are no missing links!
2) Everything is a missing link!
3) Evolution works in different ways!
4) Evolution is not a chain!
5) Nothing is more or less evolved than another!

Atheist supreme rationality at work.

In someway nothing became something, this something became a lobefish and the lobefish turned into Nachos.

For this, no evidence is even needed and if asked to prove anything, just refute your own theory by claiming others simply don't understand it and only supreme beings can understand it.

Then carry on claiming there's no such things as missing links because everything is a missing link, somehow this entire process is not a chain nor a tree or a branch or anything like that!

Then stating that there is no difference between a cockroach and a human being or a fucking dog, really shows the color of a true brainwashed atheist.

Let me ask you a question Nachos, do you think fish have any feelings? Or plants?

grtz
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345


I'll try to explain it better,

Evolution is gradual, new species are when 2+ populations can no longer successfully reproduce even if they still look identical. And those populations sometimes go extinct while others survive, making evolution a bush not a chain. Impossible to tell which fossils are from dead ends. But the fossil record still shows patterns with body parts changing gradually or moving around, for example the nostrils in the whale fossil record.

Fossilization is extremely rare, it takes very specific conditions to occur, so the overwhelming majority of life has not been fossilised. So it is like taking a picture of a child every 5 years instead of every 1 day to look at the changes in the child and evolution of species taking place. But there are still patterns in the fossil record.

So asking "where are the missing links?" is one of the most absurd questions you could ask about evolution.


Nothing became something? The Big Bang? You don't even know what the Big Bang theory is, do you? It never states the Big Bang came from nothing. No matter how often idiots keep repeating that idiotic phrase.

I said that all life today has been "evolving" for the same amount of time right up til today. We are all equally evolved as evolution has no direction. All life is as equally successful.

I have no idea what emotions fish have, and same with plants but I saw that article where they shown plants can hear caterpillars eating them then the plants release chemicals that caterpillars hate that stops the caterpillars from eating them. I don't know why a plant would have that ability if it didn't care if it was eaten or not.
 Quoting: Nachos


So now evolution is a bush? How exactly does a theory that demands elimination, create something in the form of this magical bush?

Evolution has no direction? So it's... random? I see, this makes sense when observing the living and dead world.
This makes a lot of sense!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345


You have no understanding of evolution AT ALL. Go research it. From scientific sources not answersingenesis. Or at the very least go watch potholer54's videos on evolution on youtube.

Evolution does not DEMAND death, it's just the way the world works.Also it would be a bit crowded if nothing died in the last 3.5 billion years. There would be a LOT more variation that is for sure.....it would be interesting with the dinosaurs...

Mutations are random, natural selection is the complete opposite of random.
 Quoting: Nachos


Evolution does not demand death? It's at the base of the natural selection theory.

When selecting needs to be done, it will always be equal to elimination. I don't really understand how and why one would want to deny this.

Same goes for the awesomeness of the survival of the fittest
crap. How and why would you want to deny this? Oh what a great circle it is.

I'm thinking that for you the words, adaptation, variation and evolution are all one and the same. I can only confirm the first two with the current knowledge at hand. The last one simply is a flawed inference.
Nachos

User ID: 46882477
Australia
08/04/2014 05:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Is evolution real?
...


I'll try to explain it better,

Evolution is gradual, new species are when 2+ populations can no longer successfully reproduce even if they still look identical. And those populations sometimes go extinct while others survive, making evolution a bush not a chain. Impossible to tell which fossils are from dead ends. But the fossil record still shows patterns with body parts changing gradually or moving around, for example the nostrils in the whale fossil record.

Fossilization is extremely rare, it takes very specific conditions to occur, so the overwhelming majority of life has not been fossilised. So it is like taking a picture of a child every 5 years instead of every 1 day to look at the changes in the child and evolution of species taking place. But there are still patterns in the fossil record.

So asking "where are the missing links?" is one of the most absurd questions you could ask about evolution.


Nothing became something? The Big Bang? You don't even know what the Big Bang theory is, do you? It never states the Big Bang came from nothing. No matter how often idiots keep repeating that idiotic phrase.

I said that all life today has been "evolving" for the same amount of time right up til today. We are all equally evolved as evolution has no direction. All life is as equally successful.

I have no idea what emotions fish have, and same with plants but I saw that article where they shown plants can hear caterpillars eating them then the plants release chemicals that caterpillars hate that stops the caterpillars from eating them. I don't know why a plant would have that ability if it didn't care if it was eaten or not.
 Quoting: Nachos


So now evolution is a bush? How exactly does a theory that demands elimination, create something in the form of this magical bush?

Evolution has no direction? So it's... random? I see, this makes sense when observing the living and dead world.
This makes a lot of sense!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345


You have no understanding of evolution AT ALL. Go research it. From scientific sources not answersingenesis. Or at the very least go watch potholer54's videos on evolution on youtube.

Evolution does not DEMAND death, it's just the way the world works.Also it would be a bit crowded if nothing died in the last 3.5 billion years. There would be a LOT more variation that is for sure.....it would be interesting with the dinosaurs...

Mutations are random, natural selection is the complete opposite of random.
 Quoting: Nachos


Evolution does not demand death? It's at the base of the natural selection theory.

When selecting needs to be done, it will always be equal to elimination. I don't really understand how and why one would want to deny this.

Same goes for the awesomeness of the survival of the fittest
crap. How and why would you want to deny this? Oh what a great circle it is.

I'm thinking that for you the words, adaptation, variation and evolution are all one and the same. I can only confirm the first two with the current knowledge at hand. The last one simply is a flawed inference.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345


That's because death has always happened. There has never been a time where life did not ever die. It does not demand death, it's just the way life has always been.

Evolution would still work without death, there would just be a lot more different looking animals, and a very crowded planet.

Speciation is when a population is isolated which means they will become genetically different to other populations. That is all that is really required for evolution and would still work without death. As long as life can reproduce, everything is good to go! Until there is no more space left...

Without death, natural selection would select everyone, however without death, suffering would be prolonged for infinity....

Survival of the fittest is talking about who can reproduce the best / more often. Nothing to do with death itself or killing anyone. Without death, everyone that is able to reproduce would be classified as "the fittest". With death, the ones best adapted would be the ones who reproduce more often.

Yes, adaptation and variation are both a big part of evolution. Microevolution and macro evolution are both still evolution. Microevolution is within a species, macro evolution is speciation which is the result of microevolution. So they are both from the same mechanisms, like mutations and natural selection.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 60583345
Belgium
08/07/2014 08:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Is evolution real?
...


So now evolution is a bush? How exactly does a theory that demands elimination, create something in the form of this magical bush?

Evolution has no direction? So it's... random? I see, this makes sense when observing the living and dead world.
This makes a lot of sense!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345


You have no understanding of evolution AT ALL. Go research it. From scientific sources not answersingenesis. Or at the very least go watch potholer54's videos on evolution on youtube.

Evolution does not DEMAND death, it's just the way the world works.Also it would be a bit crowded if nothing died in the last 3.5 billion years. There would be a LOT more variation that is for sure.....it would be interesting with the dinosaurs...

Mutations are random, natural selection is the complete opposite of random.
 Quoting: Nachos


Evolution does not demand death? It's at the base of the natural selection theory.

When selecting needs to be done, it will always be equal to elimination. I don't really understand how and why one would want to deny this.

Same goes for the awesomeness of the survival of the fittest
crap. How and why would you want to deny this? Oh what a great circle it is.

I'm thinking that for you the words, adaptation, variation and evolution are all one and the same. I can only confirm the first two with the current knowledge at hand. The last one simply is a flawed inference.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345


That's because death has always happened. There has never been a time where life did not ever die. It does not demand death, it's just the way life has always been.

Evolution would still work without death, there would just be a lot more different looking animals, and a very crowded planet.

Speciation is when a population is isolated which means they will become genetically different to other populations. That is all that is really required for evolution and would still work without death. As long as life can reproduce, everything is good to go! Until there is no more space left...

Without death, natural selection would select everyone, however without death, suffering would be prolonged for infinity....

Survival of the fittest is talking about who can reproduce the best / more often. Nothing to do with death itself or killing anyone. Without death, everyone that is able to reproduce would be classified as "the fittest". With death, the ones best adapted would be the ones who reproduce more often.

Yes, adaptation and variation are both a big part of evolution. Microevolution and macro evolution are both still evolution. Microevolution is within a species, macro evolution is speciation which is the result of microevolution. So they are both from the same mechanisms, like mutations and natural selection.
 Quoting: Nachos


--> Circle. 5a

Anyhow, seeing you claim this.
I would like you to give me 20 scientific examples that this is a proven scientific fact that can be tested with the scientific method.
Nachos

User ID: 44387541
Australia
08/07/2014 03:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Is evolution real?
...


You have no understanding of evolution AT ALL. Go research it. From scientific sources not answersingenesis. Or at the very least go watch potholer54's videos on evolution on youtube.

Evolution does not DEMAND death, it's just the way the world works.Also it would be a bit crowded if nothing died in the last 3.5 billion years. There would be a LOT more variation that is for sure.....it would be interesting with the dinosaurs...

Mutations are random, natural selection is the complete opposite of random.
 Quoting: Nachos


Evolution does not demand death? It's at the base of the natural selection theory.

When selecting needs to be done, it will always be equal to elimination. I don't really understand how and why one would want to deny this.

Same goes for the awesomeness of the survival of the fittest
crap. How and why would you want to deny this? Oh what a great circle it is.

I'm thinking that for you the words, adaptation, variation and evolution are all one and the same. I can only confirm the first two with the current knowledge at hand. The last one simply is a flawed inference.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345


That's because death has always happened. There has never been a time where life did not ever die. It does not demand death, it's just the way life has always been.

Evolution would still work without death, there would just be a lot more different looking animals, and a very crowded planet.

Speciation is when a population is isolated which means they will become genetically different to other populations. That is all that is really required for evolution and would still work without death. As long as life can reproduce, everything is good to go! Until there is no more space left...

Without death, natural selection would select everyone, however without death, suffering would be prolonged for infinity....

Survival of the fittest is talking about who can reproduce the best / more often. Nothing to do with death itself or killing anyone. Without death, everyone that is able to reproduce would be classified as "the fittest". With death, the ones best adapted would be the ones who reproduce more often.

Yes, adaptation and variation are both a big part of evolution. Microevolution and macro evolution are both still evolution. Microevolution is within a species, macro evolution is speciation which is the result of microevolution. So they are both from the same mechanisms, like mutations and natural selection.
 Quoting: Nachos


--> Circle. 5a

Anyhow, seeing you claim this.
I would like you to give me 20 scientific examples that this is a proven scientific fact that can be tested with the scientific method.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345


[link to blogs.scientificamerican.com]

Read this, it talks about speciation and gives examples. I am sure I could find a better link but it is 5am right now
nomuse
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/07/2014 11:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Is evolution real?
Evolution does not demand death? It's at the base of the natural selection theory.

When selecting needs to be done, it will always be equal to elimination. I don't really understand how and why one would want to deny this.

Same goes for the awesomeness of the survival of the fittest
crap. How and why would you want to deny this? Oh what a great circle it is.

I'm thinking that for you the words, adaptation, variation and evolution are all one and the same. I can only confirm the first two with the current knowledge at hand. The last one simply is a flawed inference.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345


Evolution is populations not individuals.
Evolution is populations not individuals.
Evolution is populations not individuals.

It is not required an organism die; merely that it lacks significant genetic contribution to the population.


(And for extra subtlety, when we are talking populations, then characteristics that show up in individuals beyond the breeding age will still be selected for. Or do you think ants are incapable of evolving? Most ants in a colony are sterile!)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 60583345
Belgium
08/08/2014 12:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Is evolution real?
Evolution does not demand death? It's at the base of the natural selection theory.

When selecting needs to be done, it will always be equal to elimination. I don't really understand how and why one would want to deny this.

Same goes for the awesomeness of the survival of the fittest
crap. How and why would you want to deny this? Oh what a great circle it is.

I'm thinking that for you the words, adaptation, variation and evolution are all one and the same. I can only confirm the first two with the current knowledge at hand. The last one simply is a flawed inference.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345


Evolution is populations not individuals.
Evolution is populations not individuals.
Evolution is populations not individuals.

It is not required an organism die; merely that it lacks significant genetic contribution to the population.


(And for extra subtlety, when we are talking populations, then characteristics that show up in individuals beyond the breeding age will still be selected for. Or do you think ants are incapable of evolving? Most ants in a colony are sterile!)
 Quoting: nomuse 2380183



If you have a population of two and you eliminate one, the entire process ends.
If you have a population of two and you eliminate one, the entire process ends.
If you have a population of two and you eliminate one, the entire process ends.

See, I can spam as well!

pump2
nomuse
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/08/2014 01:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Is evolution real?
Evolution does not demand death? It's at the base of the natural selection theory.

When selecting needs to be done, it will always be equal to elimination. I don't really understand how and why one would want to deny this.

Same goes for the awesomeness of the survival of the fittest
crap. How and why would you want to deny this? Oh what a great circle it is.

I'm thinking that for you the words, adaptation, variation and evolution are all one and the same. I can only confirm the first two with the current knowledge at hand. The last one simply is a flawed inference.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345


Evolution is populations not individuals.
Evolution is populations not individuals.
Evolution is populations not individuals.

It is not required an organism die; merely that it lacks significant genetic contribution to the population.


(And for extra subtlety, when we are talking populations, then characteristics that show up in individuals beyond the breeding age will still be selected for. Or do you think ants are incapable of evolving? Most ants in a colony are sterile!)
 Quoting: nomuse 2380183



If you have a population of two and you eliminate one, the entire process ends.
If you have a population of two and you eliminate one, the entire process ends.
If you have a population of two and you eliminate one, the entire process ends.

See, I can spam as well!


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345


A "population" of two would be an evolutionary dead-end. No genetic diversity.





GLP