Do You Believe Darwin's Theory of Evolution? - Page 4 - Video Games Forum

Giggley_Girl · #31 (**permalink**) 10-25-2005, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious

I am the same way. I do not attend church....ever. Never the less I do have a very strong belief in god and jesus. I believe that faith is in the people, not the building....

Glad to see someone is one the same page as me........eaqually delighted that it is you Vicious!

jasonW · #32 (**permalink**) 10-26-2005, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zteccc

We get taller, in some nations, societies and peoples, but in others we don't. Could there be another factor? For example, could we be better nourished today than we once were? Could the size difference be just a standard variation provided by our genome? Such physical traits could easily be explained without evolution, and in fact, we find that the human genes aren't appreciably different worldwide, so despite the variance in physical size, it appears that the genes are the same. In short, we haven't evolved to be taller, we're simply expressing a variation in the given genome.
According to Occam's razor, the hypothesis with the least assumptions needed is the one that science should choose. Clearly, an evolutionary change to explain height (one that we can't see when examining the genes in various cultures) is a greater assumption than simply better nourishment and existing gene variation.

Nonetheless, if your faith is based in Evolution, good luck with that.

-- Jeff

but what do people think evolution is? of course it has to do with the way peoples eating habits and the climats have changed, but that is part of Darwin's theory too,the more the they discovered the more the brain changed , and the more intelligent , the more they discovered new ways of hunting,eating...and so on.That is evolution.
The genes follow all this, a simple example if cut off the tail of a cat, and do so for 2 or 3 generations, now you have a fairly good change to see the kitten of the 4th generation be born with a shorter or hardly existing tail and 2 or 3 generations after , the kitten to come probably won't even have one.
Now take the example of 2 polish parents with fair skin having kids, let them emigrate to a hot climatical country,after a few generations you will see darker skinned kids be born because generation after generation the genes will of modified themselves to get use to the environment...
yes I totaly agree with Darwin and what I read about "evolution' confirms me into it.
After everyone is open to believe his own theory..

zteccc · #33 (**permalink**) 10-26-2005, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonW

but what do people think evolution is? of course it has to do with the way peoples eating habits and the climats have changed, but that is part of Darwin's theory too,the more the they discovered the more the brain changed , and the more intelligent , the more they discovered new ways of hunting,eating...and so on.That is evolution.
The genes follow all this, a simple example if cut off the tail of a cat, and do so for 2 or 3 generations, now you have a fairly good change to see the kitten of the 4th generation be born with a shorter or hardly existing tail and 2 or 3 generations after , the kitten to come probably won't even have one.
Now take the example of 2 polish parents with fair skin having kids, let them emigrate to a hot climatical country,after a few generations you will see darker skinned kids be born because generation after generation the genes will of modified themselves to get use to the environment...
yes I totaly agree with Darwin and what I read about "evolution' confirms me into it.
After everyone is open to believe his own theory..

Darwinian evolution suggests a genetic change. If there is no gene change, then all we see is an adaptive trait that exists within the existing genome. (e.g. human genes can support a variet of skin tones without expressing a gene change, but a gene change would definitely be necessary for humans to sprout feathers as an adaptive trait). Eating and drinking theoretically has an effect, but we don't see a genome change due to diet (at least we haven't yet). For example, the Inuit (Eskimos) traditionally have a nearly 100% meat diet. They went for generations without a green leafy vegetable, yet we don't see a variation in the genome between them and the people of India (largely vegetarian).

Your example of the kittens doesn't apply in real life (nature). Example: Nearly every Cocker Spaniel bred in the U.S. has their tail bobbed (and we've seen that for generations), but newborn Cocker Spaniels have full tails. Amputating an appendage doesn't change the genome of the parent, so offspring will have the genome to include the appendage that was amputated.

Evolution discusses a genome change, not just a physical change. Taller or shorter is physical. We don't see the genome changed in taller or shorter people, those traits are simply variations that exist within the given genome. Yes, genes can be changed in a lab for this purpose, but that isn't evolution. Evolution is this type of change occurring spontaneously and naturally. Evolutionists tells us that we won't likely see such a change in our lifetime because the change is gradual requiring thousands, if not millions of generations. Neat thing, that. We're supposed to believe that it happens over millions of years, so evolutionists don't need to provide any reproducable, falsifiable experiments (reproducable, falsifiable experiments are a basic cornerstone of any scientific process, except apparently evolution). This sounds more like faith than science to me (I don't have a problem with evolution as a faith, as long as it is acknowledged as such).

-- Jeff

Guru · #34 (**permalink**) 10-26-2005, 07:00 PM

We will all see when people die but I am a strong christian and evolution is junk. How do you expect someone to change there ways to evolution when everything scientist come to is never 100% and if it is there only human there not going to be perfectly right.

jasonW · #35 (**permalink**) 10-27-2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Your example of the kittens doesn't apply in real life (nature). Example: Nearly every Cocker Spaniel bred in the U.S. has their tail bobbed (and we've seen that for generations), but newborn Cocker Spaniels have full tails. Amputating an appendage doesn't change the genome of the parent, so offspring will have the genome to include the appendage that was amputated.

Actualy this example was a true fact as it's what has been happening within the family(with generations of pussies) that is why I refered to it as it realy is amazing to witness.

As for genome change we do not have enough retreat to be able to affirm that no changes have occured, 30 or 40 years is far from being enough when it comes to seinf gene evolution.

zteccc · #36 (**permalink**) 10-27-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonW

Actualy this example was a true fact as it's what has been happening within the family(with generations of pussies) that is why I refered to it as it realy is amazing to witness.

Please give me a source for this. I've never heard of amputation being passed on to a future generation. As I wrote, it doesn't happen in Cocker Spaniels. It also doesn't happen in Doberman Pinschers or Rottweillers. I can't imagine that it would occur in felines without something else going on. Still, please provide a verifiable source for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonW

As for genome change we do not have enough retreat to be able to affirm that no changes have occured, 30 or 40 years is far from being enough when it comes to seinf gene evolution.

That is one of my points. We don't live long enough to see the evolutionary change, yet we are supposed to believe it. We can't provide a single experiment that shows an evolutionary genome change.

Science, and especially the scientific method, is about what we can see, observe, measure, etc. Evolution doesn't have any of that. The scientific method is to observe something in nature, generate a falsifiable hypothesis and then perform repeatable experiments. After experimenting, the scientist then modifies the hypothesis to another falsifiable hypothesis and experiments further. Evolutionists have yet to provide a falsifiable hypothesis (some components of evolution are falsifiable, but most are not, and as such evolution as a whole is not). They also haven't come up with any repeatable experiments. This isn't science, it is simply a guess. They believe it by faith. As I wrote, I don't have a problem with evolution as faith, as long as it is acknowledged as such.

-- Jeff

ps If you don't know what I mean by falsifiable hypothesis, let me know and I'll give some examples.

jasonW · #37 (**permalink**) 10-28-2005, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Please give me a source for this. I've never heard of amputation being passed on to a future generation. As I wrote, it doesn't happen in Cocker Spaniels. It also doesn't happen in Doberman Pinschers or Rottweillers. I can't imagine that it would occur in felines without something else going on. Still, please provide a verifiable source for it.

it's what has been happening to my aunts cats over the 25 last years...as for a verifiable source, you'll just have to go along with my word for it!

Quote:

If you don't know what I mean by falsifiable hypothesis, let me know and I'll give some examples.

why wouldn't iknow the meaning of those words?

zteccc · #38 (**permalink**) 10-29-2005, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonW

it's what has been happening to my aunts cats over the 25 last years...as for a verifiable source, you'll just have to go along with my word for it!

I'm sorry, but that isn't how science works. We'd need to verify that there are no manx genes in the line of your cats (a manx is a feline breed that sometimes doesn't have a tail, but can interbreed with common cats and sometimes the recessive lack of a tail comes through, this is typical genome variation, not evolution). We'd need to verify through repeated experimentation that this would occur in other felines (that it is reproducable). The lack of tails can be explained through a recessive variation in the existing genome, not as evolution of the genome.
I have no doubt that your aunt has cats without tails. I do doubt that they are being born that way because of an evolutionary change caused by her cropping the tails of their ancestors. Without something better as a source, you're simply not going to sell any scientist on this (sorry).

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonW

why wouldn't iknow the meaning of those words?

Well, you did just attempt to present your aunt's cats as evidence of your point which doesn't fullfill the criteria. Many people don't know what a falsifiability means or what a falsifiable hypothesis is, and I wasn't sure if you did or not.

-- Jeff

Guru · #39 (**permalink**) 10-29-2005, 11:00 AM

All I know is I am not bringing myself down to the level of an animal im a human not an animal and I did not come from an animal.

thunderbird · #40 (**permalink**) 10-30-2005, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru

We will all see when people die but I am a strong christian and evolution is junk. How do you expect someone to change there ways to evolution when everything scientist come to is never 100% and if it is there only human there not going to be perfectly right.

Science and religion never seem to get on ....

I believe in Darwin's conclusions won't spend hours talking about it as i'm not here for that, but nobody could change my way on the subject and I wouldn't try and change others