Escape This Topic With Slenderman

[Twilight Wolf]

Question: how do they redefine "theory?"

[darkphantomime]

They think Theory means 'guess', saying evolution is just a theory, in an attempt to invalidate its position.

[Twilight Wolf]

That's the thing, though: Evolution and Creationism are both theories. Neither has been definitively proven nor disproven through science, which is why both are still theories and not laws.

[darkphantomime]

......

Creationism doesn't even deserve to be called a theory; it is a hypothesis. There is NO credible evidence to back creationism up. Credible evidence and testing is the thing that separates a theory from a hypothesis, which is why evolution is highly supported.

Question: Have you yet to study the scientific method, TW?

[Twilight Wolf]

I have studied it, yes. Let me ask you, though: What credible evidence do you have for Evolution?

[DW]

There is credibly evidence; locations and events from the Bible match up.

[darkphantomime]

The fossils and how we've seen organisms evolve as a process of adaption via natural selection.

Darwin's study of living creatures on the Galapagos Islands.

Island Gigantism

There are countless other things that support evolution, far too much to say in this single post.

Also, I really hope that's sarcasm Shika.

[Twilight Wolf]

I don't deny that Natural Selection occurs. Survival of the fittest makes perfect sense: whatever creature is best suited to live in its environment will doubtless be the most successful. That's not Evolution. Saying that this process eventually results in new breeds of creatures isn't Evolution, either. Saying that this process eventually yields entirely new animals is Evolution, and I disagree with it.

I've never head of any "missing links" found in the fossil record.

Do you mean "Island Gigantism?" That's just an extension of Natural Selection, from what I've heard.

What are some of the countless other things that support it?

Also, there have been historians that have proven that locations and events in the Bible match up. Do you just disagree with this because "science" taught you that the Bible is a book of fairy tales?

[DW]

You can't deny Jesus existed.

[Keaton]

Of course Jesus existed.  He was an evangelist, nothing more.  The locations in the Bible existed, simply because it provides a method of belief far beyond simple enjoyment, because that's all the Bible really is-- a bunch of parables not necessarily based on fact.  Moses didn't part the Red Sea, it was just a metaphor for, ah, something.

[darkphantomime]

I do not deny that events in the bible match up with places and events in history. I am however saying that the bible has very little to do with Natural History, as opposed to Human History.

For evolution, here's a model that my Anthropology teacher used.

Say you have a group of the same species in one area. The creatures mate with each other and we have 'gene-flow' as they mate and reproduce over many generations. Now say we have a Geologic event that separates the group of species into two smaller groups permanently. they go off and breed and there is NO gene flow between the groups; they stay isolated for thousands of generations. Mutation occurs randomly and useful mutations help individuals in the group survive, useful traits become advantageous while useless mutations or harmful mutations prevent individuals from surviving and procreating. This is called Natural Selection. Eventually, the genomes of the two groups become substantially different and each group has evolutionary traits that allow them to better survive in their respective environments (Remember, this process takes thousands, even millions of generations to occur and develop). Eventually the two groups have changed significantly, that even if the geological barrier were removed, mating between the two groups would NOT result in fertile offspring (which is the definition of differentation between species; if a 2 groups of animals mate but cannot produce fertile offspring (Fertile in the sense of being able to produce offspring), then they are of separate species.

Does that help?

[MagmarFire]

I say you illustrated it finely, JQ.

[Twilight Wolf]

You described it nicely, but I still don't agree with it. From what you describe, it sounds like natural selection with "random-yet-helpful mutations" mixed in. I very much doubt mutations just occur randomly, as you describe, and the chances of any such mutation being helpful are pretty much impossible. Mutations just about always result in a hindrance or disability to the creature in question, logically making it considerably weaker than a normal creature of the same kind, and thus far less likely to survive among normal, healthy individuals. It's "survival of the fittest" once again.

The two groups would be far different, of course, but they'd still be the same kind of animal.

[MagmarFire]

I very much doubt mutations just occur randomly, as you describe, and the chances of any such mutation being helpful are pretty much impossible. Mutations just about always result in a hindrance or disability to the creature in question, logically making it considerably weaker than a normal creature of the same kind, and thus far less likely to survive among normal, healthy individuals. It's "survival of the fittest" once again.

Counterpoint: Ever heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria? That's caused by mutations.

[darkphantomime]

You described it nicely, but I still don't agree with it. From what you describe, it sounds like natural selection with "random-yet-helpful mutations" mixed in. I very much doubt mutations just occur randomly, as you describe, and the chances of any such mutation being helpful are pretty much impossible. Mutations just about always result in a hindrance or disability to the creature in question, logically making it considerably weaker than a normal creature of the same kind, and thus far less likely to survive among normal, healthy individuals. It's "survival of the fittest" once again.

The two groups would be far different, of course, but they'd still be the same kind of animal.

This is taking place over thousands of generations, a lot of mutations will be harmful yes, some will be benign, but a sizable quantity will still be beneficial. If a creature haxs harmful mutations, they die off and don't procreate, meaning that they don't get to pass on the harmful mutation

Does that clear anything up for you?