Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Evolution Quesiton? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 11

mjs020294

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2245
Offline
#15 : April 01, 2008, 07:19:17 PM

Apes already have the ability to communicate using sign language taught by humans.  So there is potential for them to learn to use tools (some animals already do use tools) assuming it would be advantageous for them for survival. 


So does that mean one day we might have delinquent apes jacking cars.


bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27661
Online
#16 : April 01, 2008, 07:20:35 PM

Evolutionary theory has become a religion just like creationism. Neither side is willing admit
that their theory is full of holes.

Skull, I am open to some kind of intervention. But (as somebody on this site pointed out
to me) there are some who have looked at Sitchin's work and pointed out the problems
with some of Sitchin's translations. Still the "correct?" translations are just as interesting.
Christians would appreciate them. Instead of ET, they may have been talking about
negative entities aka demons, that took physical form. So, inner dimensional? Higher
dimensional?


How is evolutionary theory full of holes?


cyberdude557

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11834
Offline
#17 : April 01, 2008, 07:39:54 PM

One of life's great mysteries: What is the functional purpose of breasts on men? Semms very odd that we have them and they seve zero purpose as far as i'm concerned.

Not really. Genetically, gender is decided at conseption (XX or XY). But the sex organs do not develop until week 6. A male fetus and a female fetus at week 5 and earlier are exactly the same. At that 6th week, if the fetus is male, he will begin producing testosterone and this causes the sex organs to begin developing. If the fetus does not get testosterone, it continues development into a female.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28868
Online
#18 : April 01, 2008, 07:47:15 PM

Bradentonian,

I should say allegedly full of holes since I am not smart enough to debate it. I have posted articles that make
that argument (holes) on here before. They make sense to me but what do I know?

Here is one:

http://www.s8int.com/dna8.html

You might not agree with Lloyd's ET intervention theory but you may agree with what he has to say.
If not, I will not debate you. Not that I wouldn't enjoy it. But I am trying to cut down on any
long debates on this board. Too much time wasting.

If you think Lloyd made a huge mistake in that particular essay, and you feel like telling him
so or debating him, you can go to his site and email him:

www.lloydpye.com

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37082
Offline
#19 : April 01, 2008, 08:12:36 PM

Well I can explain some of the holes in the evolutionary theory (Not using the ET theories).

First and foremost is how life originated?

Some argue that life was transported to earth via space particles.  What is the problem with this theory? That assumes the earth didn't have an atmosphere formed early on.  But the newly created earth would have been very hot.

Some argue the earth already had the right atmospheric conditions for life to form.  What is the problem with that?  The building blocks of life has been created in the lab using ideal conditions but what is the probability that could occur randomly when the earth was initially formed? .000000000000000000000000000000000000001!

Some believe that life originated near hydrothermal vents becuase of the resource rich materials that is projected out of them.  The problem with that is very little life has shown to be able to survive at such high temperatures and water depths.  

Some believe life formed from clay (not organic), RNA replications (How do you go from RNA to DNA?), or even pyrite (not organic either).

Stromatolties are believed to be the first life forms.  These bacteria generated oxygen by photosynthesis but it would take a long time for them to generate enough oxygen to sustain life.  Scientists are not sure if 3 billion years is enough for stromatolies to generate enough oxygen for evolution to take place.   The consensus is that they did generate oxygen but the oxygen levels for other life was still low and the increase in oxygen came later in the Cambrian which coincided with the explosion of life forms.

How did life evolve from Prokaryotic cells to Eukaryotic cells?  

The next problem is some believe in punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism .  With more and more findings with transitional fossils being found it seems phyletic gradualism may end up being the accepted theory.  But puncuated equilibrium can be used to make a case for Cambrian animals as they came out of no where.  

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#20 : April 01, 2008, 08:15:09 PM

Joe, you left off the "s" as in plural, theories of evolution.

There is one "Theory of Evolution" which is Darwin's.  It explains how a species evolves into numerous sub-species (like a finch becoming different varieties of finches) quite well.  

Then there are a number of postulates, hypothosis, almost theory theories, that try to expand Darwin's work to cover all life everywhere.  The holes come from all the add-on theories that try to explain thing Darwin never intended.

Natural selection works fine when discussing why iguanas from Panama are different from iguanas from the Galapagos,  but it does not explain why octopuses are different from cheetahs.


Runole

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8929
Offline
#21 : April 01, 2008, 08:19:34 PM

The idea that everything was zapped into existence in a matter of days makes no sense logically and can't be confirmed by any testable evidence.


------------------------------

Species in fact change and develop over time due the environment they face.   The biggest problem most have is being able to even grasp 1 million years.

What can happen in a million years?  How about 5 or 600 million years?

The overwhelming geologic and biological record support some sort evolutionary change.  From micro biological forms of life to higher forms existing today.

Certainly there are holes ( why wouldn't there be? most living tissue completely vanishes over time. I believe  spontaneous mutations occur constantly that fail and  every so often one succeeds. 

Even the concept "Life" itself is being expanded and debated.  What type of environment can support life?

Runole

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8929
Offline
#22 : April 01, 2008, 08:24:37 PM

Joe, you left off the "s" as in plural, theories of evolution.

There is one "Theory of Evolution" which is Darwin's.  It explains how a species evolves into numerous sub-species (like a finch becoming different varieties of finches) quite well. 

Then there are a number of postulates, hypothosis, almost theory theories, that try to expand Darwin's work to cover all life everywhere.  The holes come from all the add-on theories that try to explain thing Darwin never intended.

Natural selection works fine when discussing why iguanas from Panama are different from iguanas from the Galapagos,  but it does not explain why octopuses are different from cheetahs.


Octopus and other mollusks  versus a warm blooded mammal?     Well they both have DNA and a definite animal cell structure however many of their other systems used for their survival are related to the environment they live...

Nice general  link on Classification of life


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28868
Online
#23 : April 01, 2008, 08:26:38 PM

Thanks, JG...

If Darwin were alive today, he's be pissed at how his theory was turned into something that he
didn't claim. I read that in some of his later versions of Origin of the Species, he even used the
C (Creator) word. He may have been trying to appease some of the religious folks.

As far as how life started on earth? We discussed this a while ago when Dalbuc was still a
part of this board. This was one of my posts...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E7D7113DF933A05754C0A9629C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=5

Francis Crick, Co-Discoverer of DNA, Dies at 88

By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: July 30, 2004

In 1977 Dr. Crick left Cambridge, and his well-known house on Portugal Place, with its golden helix above the front door, where he and Odile had held many high-spirited parties. The Cricks moved to the Salk Institute in San Diego. There he took on another challenging unsolved problem of biology: the nature of consciousness.

He had little expectation of producing any radically new ideas at age 72, he wrote in 1988, ''but at my time of life I had a right to do things for my own amusement.'' Never one to let his mind lie fallow, Dr. Crick produced a stream of papers about aspects of the brain and a well-regarded popular book in 1994, ''The Astonishing Hypothesis,'' which summarized his ideas.

Another diversion that Dr. Crick allowed himself was a bold speculation about the origin of life. Only the most eminent and secure of scientists would dare flirt with the idea that earth may have been seeded with life by a rocket ship from another planet. But that possibility, a thesis Dr. Crick termed ''Directed Panspermia,'' was aired in an article he published in the journal Icarus (1973) with his Salk Institute colleague Leslie E. Orgel and in a popular book by Dr. Crick alone, ''Life Itself'' (1981).

Dr. Crick in no way rejected the orthodox scientific thesis that life evolved in some way, yet to be specified, from the chemicals present on the early earth. But he was impressed by the unexplained universality of the genetic code and uncomfortable with the narrow window of time between the date the earth cooled enough to be habitable and the first appearance of life in the fossil record. With ''Directed Panspermia,'' he prepared, in effect, an intellectual escape hatch, an alternative explanation for life should scientists in fact find it too hard to account plausibly for the remarkably rapid emergence of earth's first life forms.


alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37082
Offline
#24 : April 01, 2008, 08:30:31 PM

Quote
but it does not explain why octopuses are different from cheetahs

Different enivorments. :P

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28868
Online
#25 : April 01, 2008, 08:41:20 PM

How about some Asian people having a different eye shape?

How does evolution explain that? What sort of environmental factor caused that to happen?
What's the top theory?

I read that they were in windy or snowy areas and they had to squint. So the trait
stayed. Is that the best science can do?

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28868
Online
#26 : April 01, 2008, 08:52:39 PM

Why do Jewish Americans and Asian Americans, on average, have higher IQs than other races?

I was going to post this article a long time ago but figured it would cause too much controversy.
So I'll bury it here.

It's a very interesting article and VERY PI to discuss anywhere. Except among friends. Have at it...

http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123

It kind of, sort of, fits in this thread.




Guest
#27 : April 01, 2008, 08:57:17 PM

So does that mean one day we might have delinquent apes jacking cars.

Yes. And that day is usually on a Friday.


alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37082
Offline
#28 : April 01, 2008, 08:58:31 PM

Quote
I read that they were in windy or snowy areas and they had to squint. So the trait
stayed. Is that the best science can do?

Evolution becuase of squinting?  I should try that some time.

Instead of being rounded they are almond shaped due to the enviroment they lived in.  Most likely a desert enviroment I believe.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28868
Online
#29 : April 01, 2008, 09:19:47 PM

Do other desert people have those eye traits around the world?
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 11
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Evolution Quesiton? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools