Do you believe in macroevolution?

[waruikazi]

Oh hohoho! Is it reaaaaalllly? :lol:

Apostrophe s is used for three things! Contractions (it is-it's, does not-doesn't), which it hasn't been in this case. Showing possession (Slimey's dog is Piri, Surroundx's grammar is terrible. That is a poor example, i don't think Surroundx needs and s for possession.) Finally for pluralising acronyms and contractions! Seeing as typo is a contraction for typographical, it is accurate to use an apostrophe s ('s) for its pluralisation!

In this instance, you have made incorrect use of a contraction in your pluralisation. There would not be an apostrophe in "typos". Also, the use of an ellipsis after "error" is entirely superfluous. Plus, the grammar is just atrocious!




"Therefore" is one word Gordo.

P.S. Don't try to tell us that your thumb slipped and accidentally hit the space bar!

 

[Bluetongue1]

Wrightpython,
You make life seem like an endless misery for all. I would hope that is a long way from the reality. Most certainly some individuals get a raw deal compared to others. I see the explanation as a non-interfering creator. There are those who would say that individuals put through undue suffering here will be compensated in the spiritual hereafter.

miss_mosher,
I see no issue with believing in a creator and believing in evolution at the same time. What it gets actually gets down is whether you see the book of Genesis as a verbatim account of how it happened or whether you view it as being in parable form - to teach an underlying principle using a made-up story. The so-called "creationists" are that believe the bible must be taken word for word as true. Yet if you look at recounts of Christ's teachings, time and again he used parables to get the message across.

So, how do you marry creator and evolution. The creator allowed this amazing molecule called DNA to develop and exist. It had two amazing properties. it could reproduce itself. And it contained a code that allowed it to build living to carry it. With minimal interference the creator allowed this molecule free reign. When it got to the point of being consciously pre-determining, the creator provided a spiritual awareness. The story of Adam and Eve.

Evolution is anti the creationist story, it is not anti a creator or God.

Blue

 

[slim6y]

Slim6y,
C-14 is formed from the effect of comic rays on N-14 in the upper atmosphere. The carbon then combines readily with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which mixes into the lower atmosphere. Here it is taken up and incorporated into living matter by plants in the process of photosynthesis and passed onto animals via the food chain. The isotope decays at an exponential rate – usually expressed as the half life, which is the time taken for half of it to decay. Because the carbon decays back to nitrogen, which is already present in the body, you need to know the starting % of C-14 when first taken up. This has been determined by determined using the amount present in cores from particularly old trees and correlated fossilised tree trunks (matching growth rings as these vary with each year's climate).

There are about a dozen different radioactive substances that can be used for radiometric purposes. For example, potassium-argon can be utilised to determine dates in excess of 3 billion years. Whereas C-14 is good for up to 60,000 before it becomes too inaccurate. Which substance is used depends on two things – the age being estimated and what substances are found in the material to be measured.

I totally disagree that Biology is a "weak" subject. To be good at it requires a level of competence in the other major science disciplines as well as mathematics.

Blue

BLUE TO N G UE

A huh... hmmm.... yes.... ahhhhh... hmmmm.... Oh.... yes.... Ahhh I see.... oh.... Ummmmm.... Yes... Golly that's awesome. Thank you.

So - basically what I said except with a lot less words - except for the sarcasm of biology being a weak science.

It seems so upsetting that sarcasm is lost on the interweb.... Because misinterpretation must be the mother of all mothers...

1

 

[Snake_Whisperer]

Oh hohoho! Is it reaaaaalllly? :lol:

Apostrophe s is used for three things! Contractions (it is-it's, does not-doesn't), which it hasn't been in this case. Showing possession (Slimey's dog is Piri, Surroundx's grammar is terrible. That is a poor example, i don't think Surroundx needs and s for possession.) Finally for pluralising acronyms and contractions! Seeing as typo is a contraction for typographical, it is accurate to use an apostrophe s ('s) for its pluralisation!

*Bwuh bwom* (That's supposed to be my approximation of the "fail" noise you get on the radio...)

Hate to rain on the parade, but "typo" is not a contraction. It is a noun derived from the occidental habit of being lazy, useless, and incapable of spewing out more than two syllables at a time. Therefore, the use of the apostrophe is wrong. A fine effort though mate! In the immortal words of "the boy"... pwned (he pronounces it "poned", but who knows...kids!)!

 

[waruikazi]

Dammit i said contraction where i should have said abreviation! Schooling FAIL! Lucky i'm only a year one teacher!

 

[slim6y]

Bluey-tongue-tongue-1

What are comic rays?

Are they funny rays that come from pouter space (pun intended)?

Or are they more the super hero type comic rays that fly faster than a speeding bullet and can leap tall buildings in a single bound...?

 

[Snake_Whisperer]

Dammit i said contraction where i should have said abreviation! Schooling FAIL! Lucky i'm only a year one teacher!

Oh Jeebus Gordo, I'm so sorry but... it's abbreviation! :lol:

EDIT: Just occurred to me, I've been blatering on completely off topic. I suppose I've addressed the evolution of language, if that counts.

 

[snakerelocation]

the problem with humans is that instead of looking at the facts, we create them - and a few hundred years later we rely on speculations from the likes of charles darwin and his theory,- artificial selection verses natural selection.

We only believe in what we can see as factual evidence.
and yet when we have something that is far from believable we put it down as evolution.
It still gets me how a human being can come into existance in as little as 40 weeks from nothing, yet we debate on how tiny differences can happen over thousands / millions of years. really look at the evidence, its in a new mothers arms.

 

[ingie]

What defines a species? That is not a simple question to answer and is debated all the time in the science world. A widely accepted theory is that a species consists of living things that can breed together and produce fertile offspring. Microevolution is easy to prove as you can see it with your own eyes and measure it with genetic analyses. The occurrence of macroevolution depends on how you address the definition of a species.

Micro and macroevolution do not necessarily go hand in hand. How long would it take for a species to become distinct from it's predecessor? How would we measure that the species is actually distint and not just a continuation of it's former self? I am not saying that macroevolution isn't possible, just asking how you would define it.

Darwin documented solid evidence of microevolution but was not able to witness the rising of distinct new species from existing species, just extreme changes in allele frequencies within a species. Someone also suggested that humans becoming stronger and taller was proof of macroevolution, which is incorrect because we are still all one species able to freely breed amongst different races. What would have to occur for us to become a distinct new species from our ancestors or to diverge from one another to be multiple different species existing at the same time? Does it count as a new species if we simply look completely different to the cave man and have a more advanced level of communication and creativity? If that is the case then I am a different species than some of my family members haha. If white man had never stumbled upon Australian aborigines would they have continued to diverge and become a distinct species? How long would that take? Very interesting topic of discussion but there isn't 'solid evidence' like a lot of people think. There are many pieces of information that make certain options seem highly probable. That is different to concrete evidence though. For example if your basis for defining distinct species is that they must breed to produce fertile offspring, then that is going to be hard to test if it take 1 million years for speciation to occur! Do the populations need to be geographically isolated for this to occur or would it be possible for a single species to diverge into two in the one location?

 

[Klaery]

And it's not just America....You find similar results more or less across the board for most countries...

it is different outside America. I forget the exact figures but one I remember was Sweden being over 80% atheist. When I was in middle America I was amazed and appalled.

 

[Bluetongue1]

Ingie,
As you indicated the basic definition of a species is a population that breeds and produces viable and fertile offspring under natural conditions. The species concept was introduced to allow us to cope with describing the natural world. There were all these different types of organisms evident and they always produced their own kind as babies. So each different type of organism was given a name and referred to as one species. Later down the track they discovered that some species had distinctive and different sub-groups and the notion of sub-species came into being. Then they discovered groups of sub-species in which adjacent groups could breed freely but distant ones could not. So the concept of a species complex was introduced.

The essential problem is that the notion of a species was seen as a static end point that all organisms had reached. The reality, of course, is that it is not static and there is no end point. All living things are going through a continuous process of change and what we see is simply a snapshot in time.

Initial descriptions of species were based on physical characteristics and field notes of specimens collected and sent to museums. Where time and resources permitted, breeding experiments were performed with some to check their species status. Then came Genetics and DNA profiling along with the discovery of mitochondrial DNA and its ability to reveal maternal lineage. Someone who has examined the DNA of closely related species (identified as species by other means) would know what to look for in assessing whether there was sufficient difference in the DNA to warrant separate species status.

For one population to give rise to more than one species, sub-popultions need to be genetically isolated. if gene flow exists between the two populations they will not diverge significantly.

Blue

 

[redlittlejim]

im defenitly a creasionist, however instead fo calling it macroevlution i would call it adaption on selective breeding.... if 500years ago giraffs next where only 50cm long and over centuries has grown to 1.5metres long. i dont think it should be classified as another species even tho it may now look completely different. Just adapted slowly to reach higher spots so to live.

 

[Bluetongue1]

BLUE TO N G UE

A huh... hmmm.... yes.... ahhhhh... hmmmm.... Oh.... yes.... Ahhh I see.... oh.... Ummmmm.... Yes... Golly that's awesome. Thank you.

So - basically what I said except with a lot less words - except for the sarcasm of biology being a weak science.

It seems so upsetting that sarcasm is lost on the interweb.... Because misinterpretation must be the mother of all mothers...

1

I was hoping you would have picked these up without me having to point them out to you. In your correcting of Fuscus on his error you made several errors yourself.

..... considering the Earth is continually being bombarded by new carbon from other sources....

But not knowing exactly how much carbon the Earth was being bombarded with 4 billion years ago, and then a continual stream still coming in to Earth, would make radio carbon dating of the Earth very difficult.
....

The earth is not bombarded by carbon and never was.

....For an animal that died, say, 5,000 years ago, it stopped taking in carbon. So the radio isotope of C-14 will decay at a constant(ish) rate of around half of it turning to N-14 within 5730 years. ....

The rate of decay is exponential to the quantity. It is continually decreasing, not constant.

... On the other hand, recent research suggests this: Radiometric dating (not radio carbon dating) has suggested the Earth is over 4 billion years old. ...

They are not that recent.

...Unfortunately, this doesn't always give us a good representation - especially if the radio isotope was not originally formed in the Earth's crust. It may give a better indication of how old our sun is rather than the Earth....

The material the earth is made of did not come from the sun. Even if it had, it is not until the material solidifies, trapping both the radioactive atoms and the decay product, that radiometrics can be used. So it is only going to give you information about earth.

Blue

 

[miss_mosher]

im defenitly a creasionist, however instead fo calling it macroevlution i would call it adaption on selective breeding.... if 500years ago giraffs next where only 50cm long and over centuries has grown to 1.5metres long. i dont think it should be classified as another species even tho it may now look completely different. Just adapted slowly to reach higher spots so to live.

I am not alone!

 

[snakerelocation]

I am not alone!

dito

 

[Klaery]

What I would love to know but cannot ask on here (why is it that some topics are seemingly above questioning) is if anybody that actually sees creationism as a viable option has come to such a conclusion without having a religious influence? I would imagine numbers in this group are very low.

 

[Australis]

the problem with humans is that instead of looking at the facts, we create them - and a few hundred years later we rely on speculations from the likes of charles darwin and his theory,- artificial selection verses natural selection.

This assertion of relying on Darwins "speculation" is wrong. We have since built on his original theory with mountains of supporting evidence. DNA evidence alone is over whelming and DNA was unknown in Darwins time.

We only believe in what we can see as factual evidence. and yet when we have something that is far from believable we put it down as evolution.

I think its ideal to only believe in factual evidence, whats the alternative believing in false evidence or concepts that have zero evidence (like creationism)?

What exactly is it that is far from believable, are you referring to speciation ?

It still gets me how a human being can come into existance in as little as 40 weeks from nothing, yet we debate on how tiny differences can happen over thousands / millions of years. really look at the evidence, its in a new mothers arms.

No a human does not come into existence from nothing.

 

[slim6y]

I was hoping you would have picked these up without me having to point them out to you. In your correcting of Fuscus on his error you made several errors yourself.
The earth is not bombarded by carbon and never was.
The rate of decay is exponential to the quantity. It is continually decreasing, not constant.
They are not that recent.
The material the earth is made of did not come from the sun. Even if it had, it is not until the material solidifies, trapping both the radioactive atoms and the decay product, that radiometrics can be used. So it is only going to give you information about earth.

Blue

I'll take my time here - but I am having 'wireless' issues so I will get back to you when I am all done....

 

[Crystal..Discus]

What I would love to know but cannot ask on here (why is it that some topics are seemingly above questioning) is if anybody that actually sees creationism as a viable option has come to such a conclusion without having a religious influence? I would imagine numbers in this group are very low.

Nope, because the fundemental belief behind creationism is religious.

 

[Bluetongue1]

Evidence for Evolution

• Long before the true age of rock strata were known, the relative age of the earth's rocks was determined from the principle of superposition – younger rocks are formed on top of older rocks. Based on the fossils in sedimentary rocks, the geological time scale split rocks up into epochs, periods, eras and eons. The fossils show a distinct pattern of increasing complexity and a movement from water to land. Over 90% of what is fossilised no longer exists today. There are lots of gaps in the fossil record when it comes to looking at specific organisms. However, there are some clear sequences, none better that the ancestry of the horse. From a two foot high mammal to the full sized horse of today, each stage is clearly chronicled in the fossil record.
• The existence of vestigial organs is not explained by direct creationism. Humans have an appendix which would be a caecum if we were herbivores. Snakes and legless lizards still have the limb girdle bones, both pectoral and pelvic. They also have the remnants of hind limbs forming flaps
• Common DNA between closely related organism e.g. human and chimpanzee
• Common structures e.g. the route taken by the vas deferens in all mammals.
• Homologous structures e.g. the wing of a bat, flipper of a whale and arm of a human are all basic pentadactyl limbs