Evolution, It's only a theory

reply to post by griffinrl


What are you trying to prove? That you didn't edit the post? You've already admitted editing the post "for spelling mistakes". All the screenshots in the world won't change that fact.

I'll respond when you get back on topic.

Until then Cheers!

reply to post by B.A.C.


My edits were from spelling mistakes in my own comments genius. But you know that...you're just backpedalling. And my topic is your blatently false accusation and your inability to accept that you've been called on it. Admit your mistake and we'll move on.

reply to post by griffinrl


Are we going to have a grammar war now? I realize it should have been "those" words. Would you like me to point out your grammatical mistakes? I would but it's a 4000 word maximum here.

Again, when you get back on topic, I'll respond. You're just a troll.

reply to post by B.A.C.


Like a said. A credible person would go ahead and admit to a mistake or misunderstanding. Credibility rises with actions like that. A simple thing to do...or is it?

THIS IS A GREAT SERIES CALLED THE ARRIVALS...
Explains why the NWO is spreading the SCAM theory of evolution
See Here...
thearrivals.blogspot.com...

Thank you for explaining "Theory". I have met quite a few people who has misunderstood what a theory was.

Great job

The OP is right, for anyone that assumes, like the OP, that Science as it is practiced today is the only and ultimate decider of fact and truth for all of society.

Fortunately, not everyone is that obtuse.

reply to post by B.A.C.


I am no biologist, so I can't speak for the precise answers to your questions. However I am a computer scientist and I can provide a compelling example that lends credence to evolution.

In artificial intelligence, there exists a technique known as Genetic Algorithms or GA.

A genetic algorithm is a program written to quickly find solutions to equations or other problems, by a process of random mutation and selection.

It more or less goes like this:

A population of solutions with randomized attributes is created. Because it is randomized, they are pretty much all crappy solutions.... some crappier than others.

a process of selection and elimination removes from the population the worst performers, then it generates a brand new population by randomly choosing attributes from the "winning" solutions in the previous round.

this process repeats until eventually (and much faster than other search methods) a very good solution is found.

The GA (genetic algorithm) is analogous to the process of reproduction, and the selection process is analogous to the notion that organisms with greater fitness have an increased likelihood to survive.

In as much as GA represents a "model" of life and reproduction, then it could be said to be laboratory evidence for evolution. It is up to you to agree or disagree as to whether GA mimics life and reproduction.

One thing is certain: Genetic Algorithms are proof that a random process coupled with a selection component will result in accurate solutions, so anybody claiming that evolution is impossible because it contains randomness, should probably come up with a new counterargument. The process of genetic mutation and reproduction includes both randomness and a selection component, so it does seem to be a close analog.

-rrr

Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

I am no biologist, so I can't speak for the precise answers to your questions. However I am a computer scientist and I can provide a compelling example that lends credence to evolution.

In artificial intelligence, there exists a technique known as Genetic Algorithms or GA.

A genetic algorithm is a program written to quickly find solutions to equations or other problems, by a process of random mutation and selection.

It more or less goes like this:

A population of solutions with randomized attributes is created. Because it is randomized, they are pretty much all crappy solutions.... some crappier than others.

a process of selection and elimination removes from the population the worst performers, then it generates a brand new population by randomly choosing attributes from the "winning" solutions in the previous round.

this process repeats until eventually (and much faster than other search methods) a very good solution is found.

The GA (genetic algorithm) is analogous to the process of reproduction, and the selection process is analogous to the notion that organisms with greater fitness have an increased likelihood to survive.

In as much as GA represents a "model" of life and reproduction, then it could be said to be laboratory evidence for evolution. It is up to you to agree or disagree as to whether GA mimics life and reproduction.

One thing is certain: Genetic Algorithms are proof that a random process coupled with a selection component will result in accurate solutions, so anybody claiming that evolution is impossible because it contains randomness, should probably come up with a new counterargument. The process of genetic mutation and reproduction includes both randomness and a selection component, so it does seem to be a close analog.

-rrr

Well said, I have an Honours in Computer Science, although I'm not a scientist such as yourself.

I don't disagree with anything you have stated here. Mind you it only shows that man can apply the principles of evolution to arrive at solutions using Global Search Heuristics.

Interesting.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Could it be that intention and will has effect on the body and helps it evolve into a more suitable form for survival in certain cercomstances? Who/what else than the creature/plant itself can determine what the problem is and what they would want/need to solve this problem?

I think intention plays a very important part in evolution and since that works with our higher conciousness (what most people call god..) both conventional theories are right but incomplete.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate and maybe even create matter...

Best,

turbohenk

www.pbs.org...

A video about the "Landmark Trial" over ID/creationism vs Evolution being taught in in school

Part of the video was in the ops post..

Its a great video to watch.

each chapter(12) is about 7 minutes

A theory is made of facts proven by one scientist and then verified by others. It can also contain hypothesis. The main difference between a law and a theory is that a law descibes one action and a theory descibes a collection of related actions. Parts of a theory can be changed or improved without changing the overall concept it descibes. If part of a law is changed, it will become a new law. Laws are part of the overall theory or bigger picture. A hypothesis is a theory or law that has not been proven empirically and is subject to being disproved. The theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory are examples of theories that consist of proven laws and have hypothesis that can change with the evidence. If there are no facts in the theory, it is not a theory.

Here are some of the examples of evolution occuring today that I said I would provide.

Scientists have identified heritable genetic changes among squirrels, birds and insects that appear to be evolved adaptations to a warmer world.

The team found that although tuatara have remained largely unchanged physically over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving — at a DNA level — faster than any other animal yet examined.

fence lizards in the southeastern United States are adapting to potentially fatal invasive fire-ant attacks

In a mere two decades, one of Charles Darwin's finch species, Geospiza fortis, reduced its beak size to better equip itself to consume small sized seeds, scientists report in the July 14 issue of the journal Science.

Evolution is much more than an outdated hypothesis that humans came from monkeys. Evolution in itself does not seek to debunk creation. Evolution simply states that a species can adapt to better suit it's environment. More specifically a species that adapts can increase it's fitness. In other words increasing its chances of procreation and passing on its mutated genes.

Originally posted by thrustbucket
The OP is right, for anyone that assumes, like the OP, that Science as it is practiced today is the only and ultimate decider of fact and truth for all of society.

Fortunately, not everyone is that obtuse.

I agree with this also.

Science is all about making mistakes, and the re-evaluating of your position. So much of scientific fact would never have been arrived at if the scientist involved held firm to their belief's in a certain theory.

That's why evolution and creationism will never agree.

reply to post by B.A.C.


Just because we haven't found the "missing link" regarding the evolution of humans doesn't mean there isn't one. One can look simply to the Wooly Mammoth ... or what we call it's ancestors, elephants - to see how evolution works and that it DOES. It's very evident.

That's not to say I'm not a creationist as well. I just don't see the point in drawing a line. Kinda silly if you ask me.

If you believe in evolution, as I do, you more than likely believe in the Big-Bang theory as well - which to me is inconceivable. Limitless space with a unimaginably big rock that explodes to form billion of galaxies and within each, billion of star systems? I guess it's possible ... but, where'd the rock come from when there's nothing else bit empty space? Another missing link.

I think science and religion have some reconciliating to do before we advance in either of the subjects.

...Evolution in itself does not seek to debunk creation. Evolution simply states that a species can adapt to better suit it's environment. More specifically a species that adapts can increase it's fitness. In other words increasing its chances of procreation and passing on its mutated genes.

If evolution was presented this way by the majority of evolutionists, I would have no choice but to agree with it (although I would label this as Adaptation).

But evolutionist so often have a take it or leave it approach, and there are certain parts of it I can't agree with.

The part I don't agree with is whole new species appearing because of evolution. Do certain species sometimes adapt to their environment? Yes I'll agree with that. Of course, dogs grow more hair in the winter don't they?

Good Information, although I consider this Adaptation.

Originally posted by tyranny22
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

Just because we haven't found the "missing link" regarding the evolution of humans doesn't mean there isn't one. One can look simply to the Wooly Mammoth ... or what we call it's ancestors, elephants - to see how evolution works and that it DOES. It's very evident.

That's not to say I'm not a creationist as well. I just don't see the point in drawing a line. Kinda silly if you ask me.

If you believe in evolution, as I do, you more than likely believe in the Big-Bang theory as well - which to me is inconceivable. Limitless space with a unimaginably big rock that explodes to form billion of galaxies and within each, billion of star systems? I guess it's possible ... but, where'd the rock come from when there's nothing else bit empty space? Another missing link.

I think science and religion have some reconciliating to do before we advance in either of the subjects.

There is a missing link with Wooly Mammoths and Elephants as well. This is the point I'm trying to make is that there should be a Woolyphant somewhere...

[edit on 2-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

reply to post by tyranny22


tyranny, your first two paragraphs, right on topic.

Then, you veered off into the 'Big Bang'?

You have a mental image that is incorrect, regarding the formation of the Universe. It was NOT a 'big rock' that exploded.

But, leave that to another thread...it's difficult enough to explain one theory at a time....because, as is the point here, just the mere understanding of WHAT a 'theory' is, and is not, is the issue.

Evolution is something that happens so slowly, it is understood and observed AFTER the fact.

'Natural Selection'....now THAT can be observed within a Human's lifetime. Natural Selection could be considered a 'short-term' response to a changing environment....the 'long-term' response is, after many, many, many generations, a permanent change in the organism....adapt, or become extinct.

Why can't both creationist and evolutionist be right?

God created everything a long time ago when the earth was completely differant then what we see today. We must have evolved to survive. Sounds simple to me and both sides can be happy.

reply to post by B.A.C.


It's only a matter of time.

BBC Article

You have to think about the number of this animals (or whatever species we're talking about) that have existed over million and millions of years and the number that have been excavated. It's a tiny fraction that we've gathered any information from ... and in a tiny amount of time (hundreds of years) in which we've gleaned this information.

If man doesn't destroy itself in the meantime, I'm confident we'll fully understand evolution in the next 3-5 thousand years.

reply to post by B.A.C.


A 'Woolyphant'?!

Thanks, I needed a good chuckle.

I have two words for you.....Plate Tectonics

Our World, as we view it today, is just a 'snapshot' view....this planet, over the millions and billions of years, has undergone iincredible changes, as have the lifeforms that reside on the surface, and in the oceans.

We, scrappy, somewhat intelligent bipeds, are just beginning to become self-aware enough to realize that THIS planet isn't about US.....we are here by chance. Random chance. In a Universe as vast as we are now learning it to be, randomness isn't so hard to understand.