Oh don't tell me these types of threads are still going on. *sigh* I guess it never ends.
Btw: Creationism.
Of course these types of questions are going on. They go on in the American population in general so Americans will post on this topic.
Btw: Creationism what?
Of course these types of questions are going on. They go on in the American population in general so Americans will post on this topic.
Btw: Creationism what?
That's not what I was implying. I'm saying, these types of questions have already been brought up in an earlier thread (more than once).
Creationism is my answer.
for those of you who are fairly new, you may want to look at
http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread74236.html
the whole idea of god, evolution, and creationism was explored in detail
shame i cant unlock it, i aint a mod of it, would be good to merge it with this
I am surprised no one has mentioned the peppered moth example of evolution in action. For anyone who is unfamiliar with this example here is a short explanation:
The peppered moth was originally dominated by a light coloration of the wings which gave them camouflage when resting on the tree lichens. During the industrial revolution in england the majority of lichens died out and the trees were covered in soot. This increased the visibility of the moth and the light color dominance lessened due to increased predation. The majority of moths then became black winged because they were better suited to the environment.
This is a perfect example of natural selection.
Ok, so now say half of this population was in a colder environment and the dark wings allowed for better heat absorption and thus, a longer life into the winter. The longer life cycle into the cold could then cause another trait such as shorter antenna to become dominant. This cycle could then continue until another branch off of the more southern peppered moth is established.
One change causes another which cause another and so on, until a different species is established.
In my opinion (and many others will agree) thats how it works. One thing leads to another until a thousand generations have passed all having alleles which have successively become dominant due to past allele dominance and continual environmental changes.
same reason african and indian elephants are different
No j, there different because when god put them there he thought, "hhmmmm why not put different ones in africa and india".
:)
they are adapted with relation to thier ears and surface area to mass and surface area to volume ratios.
Is the purpose of the ratios for heat loss or metabolic processes?
both
for those of you who are fairly new, you may want to look at
http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread74236.html
the whole idea of god, evolution, and creationism was explored in detail
shame i cant unlock it, i aint a mod of it, would be good to merge it with this
Oh, yeah - I enjoyed that thread but like the mod said, if we want to continue this discussion - start another thread.
Duh!
The reason that thread was locked was it was 37 pages long and there were not many people who wanted to read the whole thing but there were people who would say - we covered that, read the thread.
That thread was constantly revived because there will always be people who are interested in expressing their views on the topic. If people lose interest, the thread will die.
That's not what I was implying. I'm saying, these types of questions have already been brought up in an earlier thread (more than once).
Creationism is my answer.
These types of questions have been brought up in earlier threads; if it was not an interesting question, no one would reply to it. This topic reared its head in a Holloween thread at this response, a mod said that it would be okay to continue the discussion 'in thread' but folks complained about hijacking so I started this thread. It was going to be 'should Evolution be taught in school' but I decided to make it a little more general.
The question is actually the title of this thread so throwing 'creationism' in is not an answer because it does not actually address the question. So if you wanted to divert the thread you should offer some discussion.
What's all the fuss about god or no god! Evolution or creationism.
The fuss is that people are interested in the discussion.
We are all chemical reactions! I must admit it is a complex chemical reaction.
What can a chemical reaction say about evolution?
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
We are by the fact that we are.
Part of what we are is an inquisitive species.
We need oxigen and other chemicals
Stop delivering them so will stop our chemical reaction and we say we die!
Anyone out there ever survived 20 minutes under water? For example.
How does this apply to the question at hand?
You can influence your chemical reaction by taking in a simple chemical compound : C2H5OH. Wich proves(no theory! anyone can do this, preferably at home) that you are chemical.
This proves nothing; it implies 'you are because you drink' but that is a sophomoric solipsism.
As I briefly alluded in a previous post - there does not appear to be anything in your post that argues for any side of the current question. So again I ask "if you are not going to add to the discussion, why are you posting?"
If you think your statements take a position, please expand on them to show how they are relevant. Then there can be discussion.
yeah we had a chat about reopening the god thread and decided no
this shall be god thread 2.0
The question is actually the title of this thread so throwing 'creationism' in is not an answer because it does not actually address the question. So if you wanted to divert the thread you should offer some discussion.
What do you mean throwing 'creationism' in is not an answer? Obviously I am implying that I am against the theory of evolution because of creationism.
He means that the thread isn't a yes/no poll, but rather a discussion on the for/against arguments. "I'm against" isn't an argument, it's merely a statement.
He means that the thread isn't a yes/no poll, but rather a discussion on the for/against arguments. "I'm against" isn't an argument, it's merely a statement.
Okay.
He means that the thread isn't a yes/no poll, but rather a discussion on the for/against arguments. "I'm against" isn't an argument, it's merely a statement.
Talking about making a statement, I heard on Public Radio that lots of Americans travel to England to spit on the grave of Charles Darwin.
Talking about making a statement, I heard on Public Radio that lots of Americans travel to England to spit on the grave of Charles Darwin.
So these people spit on the floor of a christian church? Sounds sort of typically bizarre American behavior. Probably no more bizarre that the Brits who buried him in a christian church.
Evolution was theorized before Darwin. People such as Thales had view of a continually changing universe and natural selection as far back as 300 Bc.
I'm starting to like Aia.
I know 'like' is a personal choice but, jeeze, can you offer some support for such a radical (or should I say, reactionary) stand?
~~~ Possible Proof of Evolution ~~~~
Q: "What do you get when you cross a donkey with an onion?"
A: "A piece of ass that brings tears to your eyes!"
Hunh? There are fossil records of several variations of paths from the common 'progenitor'. The fossil record does not show animals and plants appearing abruptly. If you have sources for your statements, I would like to see them.
Before we get too deep into this discussion, I need to know if you believe in a New Earth or Old Earth - if you believe in a New Earth, then there is not much room for discussion. Do you believe that everything was created exactly as it is in 7 days within the last 10-100,000 years? If so, how do you explain the various forms of finding the age of items (fossils, rocks, etc) using radio-active half-life?
No, I don't believe in new earth, think it is ridiculous and amazing that many Creationists still do. I do believe that a single organism can adapt, but to make some of the more drastic changes that would have to occur, I do not. However I have been trying to find fossil evidence proving either way and can't find it. All I find is evolutionists and creationists bickering back and forth about what they think is right without any evidence on either side, it's just about who has the best argument. I certainly cannot find any images representing transformations from ape to man. I did find a couple images of fossils that look like they may be transformations but noting like I would expect.
There are several links on transitional fossils in the Evolution section at the bottom of this thread: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/770002407831/m/841006407831
Here are a couple of examples which i believe proves the drastic changes which have lead to braching of new species.
Pelvis girdle in whales when they have no use and no legs - Obviously left from when they were land mammals
The appendix in the human - Left from when we were more herbivorous
Wings on ostriches and other birds - they must have been able to fly at some point in history
Why would such a perfect and divine creator place useless part on animals. Common people.
Why would such a perfect and divine creator place useless part on animals.
Sense of humor? :)
good answer. Maybe he gets a kick out of us trying to figure out if evolution is true so he throws in few curve balls like fingers in a whale.
No, but seriously, evolution is the final answer. :)
All humans probably have a common human ansistor too, but that doesn't prove or disprove the theory of evolution. Human life probably started somewhere in Africa and spread around the globe from there. Same thing happened to those octopuses. Now, if scientists could some how PROVE that the original octopuse evolved from something else, then that would be an earth-shattering story.
All humans probably have a common human ansistor too, but that doesn't prove or disprove the theory of evolution. Human life probably started somewhere in Africa and spread around the globe from there. Same thing happened to those octopuses. Now, if scientists could some how PROVE that the original octopuse evolved from something else, then that would be an earth-shattering story.
But that ancestor to humans was the ancestor to the great apes and other primates so wouldn't that point to evolution?
I know 'like' is a personal choice but, jeeze, can you offer some support for such a radical (or should I say, reactionary) stand?
There are far too many idiots in these threads.
I detect that AIA is evolving. She's obviously well educated and thoughtful, if a little too harsh for my taste, but she's learned too hold back on the anger a bit, and seldom rises to the trolls any more. A worthy opponent is emerging.
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.