10 Apr 08
Originally posted by NemesioYes I see ur sperm example. But what are you trying to get at? in ur example, there had to be an outcome. Also, with the lottey example, there had to be a winner. Someone was bound to win, and someone did. Sure, the odds for each person was huge, but someone HAD to win. But I dont see what you are getting at.
Try to think of it this way. When you were conceived, your father contributed 25 million sperm
to the effort. There was a 1 in 25 million chance that you would be you, and not someone else.
At some point a four-legged model became the 1 in 25 million shot that gave an advantage over
that which preceded it. It could have been a six-legged model, ...[text shortened]... u (that is, do you feel I have explained it in a way you
can understand)?
Nemesio
With the fish, and with lots of other species too, there are sometimes deficiencies with the baby, something not working well, or something extra, or whatever. but that doesnt explain how a fish could after a long time turn into a mammal, with legs instead of fins, with lungs for air instead of gills, etc. even given 100 billion years, the idea that man evolved from a one cell organism is so farfetched its not worth believing or trusting.
I am beginning to see more and more how evolution works. But come to think of it, there are FAR more believable ideas than that. Even though there is a teeny tiny (actually waaaaaay smaller) chance of somethign like evolution happening, believing in a world wide flood and an ark is a lot safer and more probable to believe. Out of all the religions or beliefs there are in humanity, evolution is the less likely, less safer belief.
10 Apr 08
Originally posted by thorvo
Yes I see ur sperm example. But what are you trying to get at? in ur example, there had to be an outcome.
Maybe you don't know this, but there's only a 25% chance at conception each time sperm is
ejaculated into a woman's vagina during her fertile cycle. That is, there is a 75% chance
that the outcome was nothing. Think of the various planets around the universe and think
of it that way. On some, which are in the perfect position with the perfect sun and the perfect
ratio of organic molecules, even after 16 billion years, there may not be life.
With the fish, and with lots of other species too, there are sometimes deficiencies with the baby, something not working well, or something extra, or whatever. but that doesnt explain how a fish could after a long time turn into a mammal, with legs instead of fins, with lungs for air instead of gills, etc. even given 100 billion years, the idea that man evolved from a one cell organism is so farfetched its not worth believing or trusting.
Are you genuinely opened to the idea that it could happen? If so, I and a number of other people
will walk you through why it's not farfetched, even if it's improbable.
Nemesio
10 Apr 08
Originally posted by NemesioNo I didn't know the percentages. Thanks for sharing that.
Originally posted by thorvo
[b]Yes I see ur sperm example. But what are you trying to get at? in ur example, there had to be an outcome.
Maybe you don't know this, but there's only a 25% chance at conception each time sperm is
ejaculated into a woman's vagina during her fertile cycle. That is, there is a 75% chance
that the outcome w ...[text shortened]... people
will walk you through why it's not farfetched, even if it's improbable.
Nemesio[/b]
I have no intention to accepting evolution as my belief, if thats what you mean. The complexity of life, and all scientists have learned and studied and what I am learning truely makes evolution farfetched. Yes, there is an inkling of a chance, but I have an eyewitness acount of creation. You may have things here or there that COULD point to evolution or support it, but isnt an eyewitness safer?
10 Apr 08
Originally posted by thorvoHave you ever played a game called telephone? More on that in a bit...
No I didn't know the percentages. Thanks for sharing that.
I have no intention to accepting evolution as my belief, if thats what you mean. The complexity of life, and all scientists have learned and studied and what I am learning truely makes evolution farfetched. Yes, there is an inkling of a chance, but I have an eyewitness acount of creation. You may h ...[text shortened]... things here or there that COULD point to evolution or support it, but isnt an eyewitness safer?
What you have is an allegedly eyewitness account of creation which was passed down by oral tradition for centuries, then written, re-written, lost, found, re-written again and translated into dozens of languages.
The game -telephone- is where you get a room full of people sitting in a circle, one person starts the process by whispering a statement into the ear of the person to his/her right...let's say the statement is "thorvo is incredibly handsom and intelligent". So, it goes around the room like that until it gets back to the person it started with and they reveal how much the statement had changed. From our beginning statement you could easily end up with something like "thorvo must be a mushroom because everyone keeps him in the dark and feeds him lots of bull****".
Evolution has physical evidence, and when tested it always passes. I'll take that over a 4000 year old eyewitness account any day.
10 Apr 08
Originally posted by TheSkipperYes ive played that game. I feel honored to be used as the example (sarcastic and jk too)
Have you ever played a game called telephone? More on that in a bit...
What you have is an allegedly eyewitness account of creation which was passed down by oral tradition for centuries, then written, re-written, lost, found, re-written again and translated into dozens of languages.
The game -telephone- is where you get a room full of people sittin ...[text shortened]... tested it always passes. I'll take that over a 4000 year old eyewitness account any day.
It was copied down, not re-written. And the people who copied it down were only aloud up to 2 errors, 3 errors and the guy had to restart. Lost and foudn won't have changed it, and it was passed down written, not just orally. Yes it was translated and sometimes they arent good translations, but other times they are.
Could you present any physical evidence for evolution? no one was there to see it. there are no intermediate links. there would be lots, if animals indeed did change from one kind to another.
10 Apr 08
Originally posted by thorvoWell, there you go! You admit of not having a thorough knowledge of
I have no intention to accepting evolution as my belief, if thats what you mean.
the subject, but have decided that you will never adopt it no matter what.
Next time, just say in advance that you are closed-minded so people
interested in dialogue can overlook your comments.
Nemesio
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by thorvoObviously first life is not intermediate.
if that is true, what are the two species or organisms that each specie is an intermediate link to? in other words, what are the two organisms (the original one and the final one)?
besides, the intermediate links are organisms half of one specie and half of another. the species themselves arent intermediate links.
Obviously any species at the pinnacle of its phylogeny is not intermediate.
But the vast majority are intermediate species.
A simple example:
If species 1 is the ancestor of species 2, 2 the ancestor of 3, 3 the ancestor of 4, 4 the ancestor of 5 etc etc
Then species 2 is an intermediate link between species 1 and 3.
Species 3 is an intermediate link between species 2 and 4.
Species 4 is an intermediate link between species 3 and 5.
Simple concept, obviously in reality the phylogenies are not much more complicated with many braches........ but the concept still stands.
All are intermediate.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by NemesioI never said I woudl never adopt it no matter what. I just was saying that for now I wasn't going to believe in evolution, in answer to your question. I know enough to decide that I dont care to believe in it.
Well, there you go! You admit of not having a thorough knowledge of
the subject, but have decided that you will never adopt it no matter what.
Next time, just say in advance that you are closed-minded so people
interested in dialogue can overlook your comments.
Nemesio
You seem to argue all the time about the bible and God's creation and that evolution is true. Do you expect me to convert? debates are to discuss a topic, not necessarily to convert. Sorry, I didnt realize you had high expectations.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by timebombtedYah, if specie 2 is an intermediate link between 1 and 3, but species are quite different animals. There had to be a gradual change between them. Thats the animal I am asking for, half of specie 1 and half of specie 3. Dont beat around the bush. You keep coming up with this that each specie is an intermediate link, but how about between them? a fish cant have a baby and BINGO its a turtle,. or is that how evolution works? i dotn think so. just cause there are different species doesnt mean a thing that they evolved from each other.
Obviously first life is not intermediate.
Obviously any species at the pinnacle of its phylogeny is not intermediate.
But the vast majority are intermediate species.
A simple example:
If species 1 is the ancestor of species 2, 2 the ancestor of 3, 3 the ancestor of 4, 4 the ancestor of 5 etc etc
Then species 2 is an intermediate link between ...[text shortened]... re complicated with many braches........ but the concept still stands.
All are intermediate.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by thorvoYou said you have no intention of adopting a belief in evolution. How can you have any
I never said I woudl never adopt it no matter what. I just was saying that for now I wasn't going to believe in evolution, in answer to your question. I know enough to decide that I dont care to believe in it.
You seem to argue all the time about the bible and God's creation and that evolution is true. Do you expect me to convert? debates are to discuss a topic, not necessarily to convert. Sorry, I didnt realize you had high expectations.
intentions whatsoever about something you profess a limited knowledge about? That's like saying,
I read the first chapter of the Gospel of Mark, but I've made a decision: I'm not going to be a
Christian and have no intention of adopting a Christian mindset.
That person is closed minded.
The only expectation I have is that people will approach a topic in an open-minded fashion.
Nemesio
11 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by thorvoFor organisms: you are an intermediate link between your parents and your children.
if that is true, what are the two species or organisms that each specie is an intermediate link to? in other words, what are the two organisms (the original one and the final one)?
besides, the intermediate links are organisms half of one specie and half of another. the species themselves arent intermediate links.
For species:
Well, first off you need to understand what a species is. We have a fairly loose definition of species, but generally it is a group of organisms that can interbreed with each other and do so in their natural environment.
A given species is constantly changing over time including branching (new species arising) and in rare instances converging - though this really only happens when the species are not very different. However it might surprise you to know that domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes, dingos, and jackals can all interbreed.
Since species are changing all the time, a species is at any given moment an intermediate link between what it was and what it will be. We do not usually give a new name to a species until it either diverges (and we need to name either one or both of the resultant species) or it changes significantly and we want to identify those changes.
It must be noted that the definition of species is man made and therefore not really disputable. The change to species is observable - as any farmer or dog breeder knows.
You might find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by NemesioI know enough about evolution, even if I dont know all, to know it isnt something that grabs me nor that is really likely. You seem to think if I dont believe in evolution then I am being close-minded about it. I will discuss it, but are you expecting me to start believing in it?
You said you have no intention of adopting a belief in evolution. How can you have any
intentions whatsoever about something you profess a limited knowledge about? That's like saying,
I read the first chapter of the Gospel of Mark, but I've made a decision: I'm not going to be a
Christian and have no intention of adopting a Christian mindset.
That p ...[text shortened]... expectation I have is that people will approach a topic in an open-minded fashion.
Nemesio
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk thanks for that information and the website. But that is not what I am asking. I will be clearer. In evolution, life began as a single-cell organism. From there that organism evolved into other animals and organisms and ultimately us. Today we have a large variety of species, and they can now interbreed with each other. But back when there was only one cell organism, there werent already a variety of other organisms. So lets say the singe-celled organism evolved into a trilobite, then that evolved into placoderms, then that into amphibians, then into reptiles, etc. Right now, there are only one cell organisms, trilobites, placoderms, amphibians, and reptiles. There are no mammals, no bugs, no human beings yet. Consider a mammal from a reptile. They are quite different. So how did reptiles evolve into mammals (this is just an example, I am not sure of the exact supposed order)? And at a time there must have been an organism that was half reptile and half of what we would call today mammal. So where is that link? What you guys talk about has nothing to do with this. You guys keep saying that each specie is an intermediate link or that different species interbreed to form an intermediate link, but I am asking for the intermediate link of each specie considering that only one specie was there to begin with and evolved, not interbreeded, into a totally different specie. Today, yes we can say the intermediate link between two species is when they interbreed, but back in evolution days, there weren’t all the species that we know today, but evolved into different ones after a long period of time. Thus, both species weren’t there to interbreed to form the intermediate link. I don’t know if I am being clear enough on this. So my question is where is that intermediate link between each specie? Please don’t give me that they interbreed, because while the animals were still evolving, only one part of the puzzle was present, not both. I hope I was clear enough. This is the last time I explain this.
For organisms: you are an intermediate link between your parents and your children.
For species:
Well, first off you need to understand what a species is. We have a fairly loose definition of species, but generally it is a group of organisms that can interbreed with each other and do so in their natural environment.
A given species is constantly chan ...[text shortened]... og breeder knows.
You might find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
11 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by thorvoToday we have a large variety of species, and they can now interbreed with each other.
Ok thanks for that information and the website. But that is not what I am asking. I will be clearer. In evolution, life began as a single-cell organism. From there that organism evolved into other animals and organisms and ultimately us. Today we have a large variety of species, and they can now interbreed with each other. But back when there was only one cel ...[text shortened]... e puzzle was present, not both. I hope I was clear enough. This is the last time I explain this.
Have you ever seen a rhinoceros and a bottle-nosed dolphin getting it on? Me neither. Only species that are close enough to their evolutionary point of divergence are capable of interbreeding.
Right now, there are only one cell organisms, trilobites, placoderms, amphibians, and reptiles.
Do you think these are unicellular organisms?
Consider a mammal from a reptile. They are quite different. So how did reptiles evolve into mammals?
This is an argument from personal incredulity which is a logical fallacy. Just because you find something hard to believe (or are unwilling) does not make it untrue.
And at a time there must have been an organism that was half reptile and half of what we would call today mammal.
You're assuming that today's reptiles gave rise to today's mammals but, in fact, these two groups are as far down the evolutionary road as each other. Yes, there was a common ancestor but the point of divergence occurred many millions of years ago. Humans are not the pinnacle of evolution!
So where is that link?
The fossil record provides scientists with many links. Some species become extinct and some survive. Some members of a species (with a certain life enabling characteristic) survive while others die. When this is repeated over thousands of successive generations they become so far removed from the original group as to be considered a separate species. This is how evolution works. The species we see around us are the survivors of countless evolutionary paths.
You guys keep saying that... different species interbreed to form an intermediate link.
You've misunderstood something here.
but back in evolution days
Like today? We are still evolving. Once again, humans are not the pinnacle of evolution.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by thorvo
I know enough about evolution, even if I dont know all, to know it isnt something that grabs me nor that is really likely.
The fact that the very basic notions articulated in this thread seem novel to you indicates very
clearly that you don't know very much about Evolution at all. Yet, you already know it is unlikely.
Again, if I said, 'I read the first chapter of St Mark's Gospel, and I know that Christianity is a
myth,' would you say this reflects an opened-minded or closed-minded character?
You seem to think if I dont believe in evolution then I am being close-minded about it. I will discuss it, but are you expecting me to start believing in it?
That's not what I said. What I said was that a person who makes a concrete decision (like
you said, 'I have no intention of believing...'😉 about any issue when they possess very
little of the extant information is closed-minded. You yourself admit to not having very much
knowledge of the issue at all, yet you've already decided what to believe. Consequently, you've
closed yourself to the receipt of new information, and the possibility that such new information
might cause you to change what you belief.
Nemesio