DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Evolution... or not.
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 231, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/15/2007 06:36:33 PM · #26
Originally posted by GeneralE:


...Sorry, the rules say add to the topic or don't post at all.


I wouldn't want to offend anyone, but I do find it somewhat bemusing that on a Photographic site we have "Rules" on posting, but very few specific rules vis-a-vis actual photographic processes, but a great deal of suggestions which can, for the most part be ignored.

Ray
06/15/2007 06:37:47 PM · #27
Originally posted by Blue Moon:

Originally posted by blindjustice:


I mean, what are trilobites? Dinosaur bones? carbon dating? Hybrid species?


They are supposedly tricks put there by god to tempt divergence from our faith. I however, have never believed in any religion or higher power, so evolution just seems to be the obvious answer.


Is not evolution a religion?

Message edited by author 2007-06-15 18:38:46.
06/15/2007 06:39:54 PM · #28
Originally posted by Trumpeteer4:

Is not evolution a religion?


Nope.
06/15/2007 06:45:33 PM · #29
Originally posted by Trumpeteer4:


Is not evolution a religion?


Not even remotely close

Ray
06/15/2007 06:47:14 PM · #30
Religaloution?

Nope just don't work. But I believe religion evolved. :-P
06/15/2007 07:00:08 PM · #31
Now that we're back on topic (and yes, I am slain by the beauty, elegance and power of natural selection), I give this thread until Saturday afternoon to be moved to Rant. I'd say 11 tonight but Fridays are always slow.
06/15/2007 07:07:03 PM · #32
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/39184/thumb/277903.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/39184/thumb/277903.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
06/15/2007 07:16:21 PM · #33
Originally posted by blindjustice:

I am not trying to harass creationists, and certainly not trying to call people out or discriminate...

But is there really anyone out there that does not in their heart of hearts know that evolution is real? Even Intelligent design people- don't you just know its real? Ca't we all just admit it and get over the hump...

I mean, what are trilobites? Dinosaur bones? carbon dating? Hybrid species?

Science is in no way perfect, but is it more fun to have a world full of magic and sorcery, or the wonders of dinosaurs - reality, and planets that aren't flat?


I have actually studied evolution pretty extensively and have found it to have so many holes that it's quite amazing to me that people believe it. There are so many amazing facts about our bodies,nature and the universe that it is out of the realm of possibility for me to think that it all just came about by chance.
If I showed you the watch on my wrist and told you it just evolved there due to my species need to know the time you would call me crazy but science is ready and willing to attribute this same theory to the FAR more complex universe.
But as we like to say on this site, this is, after all, JMO. :)
06/15/2007 07:38:31 PM · #34
always wondered...if we evolved from monkeys, why are their still monkeys? Why not all evolve? Also why couldn't God have created us to evolve?
06/15/2007 07:42:22 PM · #35
Originally posted by smardaz:

I have actually studied evolution pretty extensively and have found it to have so many holes that it's quite amazing to me that people believe it. There are so many amazing facts about our bodies,nature and the universe that it is out of the realm of possibility for me to think that it all just came about by chance.
If I showed you the watch on my wrist and told you it just evolved there due to my species need to know the time you would call me crazy but science is ready and willing to attribute this same theory to the FAR more complex universe.
But as we like to say on this site, this is, after all, JMO. :)


But you see the watch on your wrist did evolve. It did not just appear. In biblical times they had no such thing as a watch. But over time our ability to tell time evolved. That evolution was due to the need of the species to have a more precise measurement fo time.

edit: I should add that I do not discount a "god". I just think that the argument over evolution and creationism is crazy. Neither can be proven but at least some of the science in evolution can be proven. There are just too many religions in the world to say which one is correct.

Message edited by author 2007-06-15 19:48:44.
06/15/2007 07:42:30 PM · #36
One huge hole you forgot to mention was how God created the world in 6 days. You just stated we are so complex but yet this mythological person can create a world in 6 days, get real. Technology has proven the bible wrong.There is no version of the Bible on this planet that can be entirely and completely the divinely inspired Word of God. It simply isn't possible. Pieces of it perhaps may be very accurate, but which? What if the truth was completely lost in translation, or destroyed by careless, egotistical, ignorant church leaders? All the evidence points to severe problems so how can any of it be trusted?

06/15/2007 07:46:48 PM · #37
Well, those who do not believe in a Supreme Creator have not fully evolved.
06/15/2007 07:51:24 PM · #38
To start with, I firmly believe in evolution. However, I also think the person who thinks evolution is as plain as the nose on their face doesn't really know what they are talking about either. The more you study evolution and concentrate on the molecular evolution of life, the more it really is an amazing process which even in times of sobriety can cause crisises of scientific faith.

It is sorta like the Neils Bohr quote about quantum physics: “If anybody says he can think about quantum physics without getting giddy, that only shows he has not understood the first thing about them.”

Message edited by author 2007-06-15 19:52:17.
06/15/2007 07:52:30 PM · #39
Originally posted by David Ey:

Well, those who do not believe in a Supreme Creator have not fully evolved.


And which of the 100's, if not 1.000's, of "Supreme Creator's" out there in the hundreds of religions that exist or have existed in the world are you referring to? Or are we just limiting our discussion to Christianity?
06/15/2007 08:02:23 PM · #40
Originally posted by GeneralE:

I'm not picking on you for starting the threadjack, but I can't see why you'd object/persist when I said that -- while it was fun to dream of beer -- the thread had gone far enough astray, and let's try and get back on topic.


Can't the thread evolve into something else? :P
06/15/2007 08:06:26 PM · #41
Originally posted by sabphoto:

always wondered...if we evolved from monkeys, why are their still monkeys? Why not all evolve? Also why couldn't God have created us to evolve?


Evolution has to do with the environment in which a species lives. Species either adapt to a changing environment, or do not survive.

Here is an example: as you are probably aware, most iguanas do not swim or feed underwater. Why? Because there is no need for them to swim in order to survive. However, on the Galapagos Islands, a special type of iguana, called a marine iguana, has developed due the environment - these iguanas cannot rely soley on food sources from the ground and thus developed the capability of remaining submerged for long periods of time. In fact, these iguanas feed mainly on seaweed.

As you may also be aware, cormorants are a very common bird - found almost everywhere that water meets shore. Like most birds, they fly to get away from predators. However, there is a type of cormorant, the Flightless Cormorant, that evolved in an isolated island environment of the Galapagos that was free of predators.The birds had no need to fly and eventually became flightless. However, the Galapagos Islands have not remained free of predators, and, consequently, this cormorant is now one of the world's rarest birds. If this bird does not again evolve to survive in its shifting environment, the particular species of flightless cormorants will not survive.

You also asked why God couldn't have created us to evolve? There are many people who believe both in science and religion. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
06/15/2007 08:10:07 PM · #42
Originally posted by superdave:

One huge hole you forgot to mention was how God created the world in 6 days. You just stated we are so complex but yet this mythological person can create a world in 6 days, get real. Technology has proven the bible wrong.There is no version of the Bible on this planet that can be entirely and completely the divinely inspired Word of God. It simply isn't possible. Pieces of it perhaps may be very accurate, but which? What if the truth was completely lost in translation, or destroyed by careless, egotistical, ignorant church leaders? All the evidence points to severe problems so how can any of it be trusted?


I'm not sure how God creating the world in six days is any more fantastic than that of all living organisms coming from rocks. Why is one more scientific than the other?
06/15/2007 08:12:42 PM · #43
Originally posted by kenskid:

6000 years? Where did that come from? Don't tell me you think the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Also...it is not "random chance". The DNA "evolves" over millions of years. A fish did not one day give birth to a "fish with lungs and legs".


well... yeah. give or take a few hundred years.

and how is God creating the world in 6 days a hole?

(actually, it only took a couple of days for the world. he also had a day to create the rest of the universe and a couple days for animals and humans...)

darwinian evolution has one very significant hole: namely its inability to explain the creation of novel genes and proteins, much less "randomly" generate the information needed to create new novel forms.

for those who like math, it breaks down kinda like this : [quote]A typical gene contains over one thousand precisely arranged bases. For any specific arrangement of four nucleotide bases of length n, there is a corresponding number of possible arrangements of bases, 4n. For any protein, there are 20n possible arrangements of protein-forming amino acids. A gene 999 bases in length represents one of 4999 possible nucleotide sequences; a protein of 333 amino acids is one of 20333 possibilities.[/quote]

in other words, evolution through random mutation a statistical impossibility...

[quote]Recently, experiments in molecular biology have shed light on these questions. A variety of mutagenesis techniques have shown that proteins (and thus the genes that produce them) are indeed highly specified relative to biological function (Bowie & Sauer 1989, Reidhaar-Olson & Sauer 1990, Taylor et al. 2001). Mutagenesis research tests the sensitivity of proteins (and, by implication, DNA) to functional loss as a result of alterations in sequencing. Studies of proteins have long shown that amino acid residues at many active positions cannot vary without functional loss (Perutz & Lehmann 1968). More recent protein studies (often using mutagenesis experiments) have shown that functional requirements place significant constraints on sequencing even at non-active site positions (Bowie & Sauer 1989, Reidhaar-Olson & Sauer 1990, Chothia et al. 1998, Axe 2000, Taylor et al. 2001). In particular, Axe (2000) has shown that multiple as opposed to single position amino acid substitutions inevitably result in loss of protein function, even when these changes occur at sites that allow variation when altered in isolation. Cumulatively, these constraints imply that proteins are highly sensitive to functional loss as a result of alterations in sequencing, and that functional proteins represent highly isolated and improbable arrangements of amino acids -arrangements that are far more improbable, in fact, than would be likely to arise by chance alone in the time available [/quote]

i won't quote it all. you can read it for yourself here :
The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories
06/15/2007 08:17:33 PM · #44
Originally posted by noraneko:

Evolution has to do with the environment in which a species lives. Species either adapt to a changing environment, or do not survive.


you've given us an excilent example of the difference in micro-evolution (which i buy) and macro-evolution (which i don't)

in one location iquana's adapted the ability to swim. without preditors, a species of birds "forgot" how to fly.

the bird did not come from the iquana. the iquana did not come from other fish.
06/15/2007 08:20:09 PM · #45
Originally posted by kudzu:

i won't quote it all. you can read it for yourself here :
The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories


.. supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design

A little biased wouldn't you say?
06/15/2007 08:22:32 PM · #46
Originally posted by noraneko:

If this bird does not again evolve to survive in its shifting environment, the particular species of flightless cormorants will not survive.


This is why people feel there still needs to be a God or something else to explain this. How can something start to fly when it previously couldn't? It's not like the example of your iguana where due to desperation some took a chance and ventured into the water and those survived and procreated while the others died off. How can something like that happen with flight? You either can fly or you can't. If the enviroment demanded that humans be able to fly wouldn't it require that some humans have that ability already in order to procreate and spread that ability?

Message edited by author 2007-06-15 20:23:47.
06/15/2007 08:25:35 PM · #47
Is this not just Undecidable conjecture? I mean all observations are flawed because of the observer. Applying this thought along the lines of Schrödinger's cat. I know we are not specifically discussing Quantum Physics/quantum mechanics but in a way we are.

Message edited by author 2007-06-15 20:27:16.
06/15/2007 08:25:59 PM · #48
Originally posted by jbsmithana:

.. supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design

A little biased wouldn't you say?


yes. site i linked to is biased. as am i. as are you.

but in the future, please read at least the first paragraph before snarking on a source. that's how these things turn into rants...

Originally posted by here's that paragraph:

On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.


last time i checked, the smithsonian was a well respected scientific organization and their journals are well reviewed before publishing.
06/15/2007 08:28:30 PM · #49
Originally posted by kudzu:

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

.. supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design

A little biased wouldn't you say?


yes. site i linked to is biased. as am i. as are you.

but in the future, please read at least the first paragraph before snarking on a source. that's how these things turn into rants...

Originally posted by here's that paragraph:

On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.


last time i checked, the smithsonian was a well respected scientific organization and their journals are well reviewed before publishing.


LOL! No rant and no bias here. I'm just pointing out that the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture is a religious right founded and funded institution. Getting published in the above mentioned journal does not mean it is less or more biased.

Message edited by author 2007-06-15 20:37:11.
06/15/2007 08:30:32 PM · #50
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Is this not just Undecidable conjecture? I mean all observations are flawed because of the observer. Applying this thought along the lines of Schrödinger's cat. I know we are not specifically discussing Quantum Physics but in a way we are.


i've always though quantum physics was the closest thing to a proof for God as you could get... amazing stuff.

i heard a presentation once that used heisenberg's uncertainty principle to prove that God could exist (though he didn't go as far to say that it proved God _did_ exist). don't remember much of it because the science was way over my admittedly nerdish head. but it was fascinating.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/26/2020 08:53:51 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/26/2020 08:53:51 PM EDT.