The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Surely the chicken must have come first. I feel that a creature before the chicken must have evolved slightly, creating a egg laying animal. This is because when I turn the question around I see that the egg must have come from somewhere - right?!
Page:
Well thats a hard question to answer really. The theory of creation required a belief in God. If you have that then the answer is yes. If God exists creationism is more likely than evolution. But the argument would be "how likely is it that God exists?". Someone who says he doesnt exist would have a hard time believing creationism and therefore think evolution is more likely.
The idea that absolutely nothing all of a sudden exploded and expanded creating the universe without any kind of external imput of any kind just seems completely illogical to me.
The idea that absolutely nothing all of a sudden exploded and expanded creating the universe without any kind of external imput of any kind just seems completely illogical to me.
Geffdof wrote:
> My understanding of evolution isnt flawed. Ive read about it in
> many science books that are non religious. My lack of beliefe in
> evolution is nothing to do with religion anyway. God could have
> made the world which then evolved.
What you've posted below is incorrect. If thats your understanding of what evolution suggests happens then its flawed. Doesnt matter how much you protest its not true, as you posted the empirical evidence (thats the real science you referred to earlier) below. :)
> My understanding of evolution isnt flawed. Ive read about it in
> many science books that are non religious. My lack of beliefe in
> evolution is nothing to do with religion anyway. God could have
> made the world which then evolved.
What you've posted below is incorrect. If thats your understanding of what evolution suggests happens then its flawed. Doesnt matter how much you protest its not true, as you posted the empirical evidence (thats the real science you referred to earlier) below. :)
So.. is the theory of Creation more likely than that of Evolution then?
My understanding of evolution isnt flawed. Ive read about it in many science books that are non religious. My lack of beliefe in evolution is nothing to do with religion anyway. God could have made the world which then evolved.
Geffdof, I bet you wont do this but go and read about evolution from a source that doesnt have some religious agenda. Your understanding of evolutionary theory is flawed.
I think its a bit silly to dismiss a theory on the basis that you dont understand it.
I think its a bit silly to dismiss a theory on the basis that you dont understand it.
Its not just the timescale that puts me off. Its the idea of huge changes happening slowly.
As a theory it sounds pretty good. Alot of small changes over along period of time equals a big change. I suppose its as scientifically sound as most science. It is after all a theory rather than a fact and is subject to change upon new discoveries.
The problem I have with it is best explained with an example or two:
If you have lots of giraffes of varying size who eat leaves off trees to survive then all of the small trees die out for some reason (any reason at all, its doesnt matter what), all of the small giraffes cannot get any food and will eventually die. All of the tall giraffes will than have children who will grow to be tall because there are no small giraffes to mate with. All giraffes from that point on will be tall becaues the genetic information of small giraffes has died out. This is how natural selection works. Survival of the fitest. Whoever has the appropriate characteristics will survive and mate. Im not dismissing that.
The problm with this is that there is a loss in genetic information. The idea of evolution is that the simplest single celled organism became more complex and natural selection doesnt allow for this. Natural selection actually reducess the ammount of genetic information.
Actual mutations in the genetic code are supposed to bring about variation, which theoretically should work, but when you actually think about it its quite implausible.
Take something as complex as an eye. If all parts of the eye work as a whole and you can see but if you remove one of the many parts you would be blind. A small mutation would not be enough to produce an organism that previously had no eyes to all of a sudden have a whole fully working eye. But having part of an eye would be of no benefit at all. The organism still wouldnt be able to see unless the whole eye was present.
Mutations lead to a loss of genetic information. They mess up the code. Its like if you are writting code for a computer game, lets say Mario, and a misstake is made. The game will either not work at all, possibly work without any noticable difference or work but have bugs in, such as Marios hat is the wrong colour. It wont, however, all of a sudden become sonic the hedgehog.
Birds feathers are another good example. They are a complex formation that has to be very specific in order to allow flight. Where did feathers come from? One single mutation is too small for a whole set of working feathers to appear. I just dont see how it would work.
We can see mutations in current society. People exposed to Radiation, UV light, Mobile phone antenas and computer monitors. These are huge mutations, alot bigger than the simple steps of evolution, yet we arent giving birth to new species. Instead we are getting cancer and people are becomeing less fertile.
I've rambled on for a while now so I'll stop. Im sure you will all think Im a nut job if you read all of this post, but I think its all logical.
As a theory it sounds pretty good. Alot of small changes over along period of time equals a big change. I suppose its as scientifically sound as most science. It is after all a theory rather than a fact and is subject to change upon new discoveries.
The problem I have with it is best explained with an example or two:
If you have lots of giraffes of varying size who eat leaves off trees to survive then all of the small trees die out for some reason (any reason at all, its doesnt matter what), all of the small giraffes cannot get any food and will eventually die. All of the tall giraffes will than have children who will grow to be tall because there are no small giraffes to mate with. All giraffes from that point on will be tall becaues the genetic information of small giraffes has died out. This is how natural selection works. Survival of the fitest. Whoever has the appropriate characteristics will survive and mate. Im not dismissing that.
The problm with this is that there is a loss in genetic information. The idea of evolution is that the simplest single celled organism became more complex and natural selection doesnt allow for this. Natural selection actually reducess the ammount of genetic information.
Actual mutations in the genetic code are supposed to bring about variation, which theoretically should work, but when you actually think about it its quite implausible.
Take something as complex as an eye. If all parts of the eye work as a whole and you can see but if you remove one of the many parts you would be blind. A small mutation would not be enough to produce an organism that previously had no eyes to all of a sudden have a whole fully working eye. But having part of an eye would be of no benefit at all. The organism still wouldnt be able to see unless the whole eye was present.
Mutations lead to a loss of genetic information. They mess up the code. Its like if you are writting code for a computer game, lets say Mario, and a misstake is made. The game will either not work at all, possibly work without any noticable difference or work but have bugs in, such as Marios hat is the wrong colour. It wont, however, all of a sudden become sonic the hedgehog.
Birds feathers are another good example. They are a complex formation that has to be very specific in order to allow flight. Where did feathers come from? One single mutation is too small for a whole set of working feathers to appear. I just dont see how it would work.
We can see mutations in current society. People exposed to Radiation, UV light, Mobile phone antenas and computer monitors. These are huge mutations, alot bigger than the simple steps of evolution, yet we arent giving birth to new species. Instead we are getting cancer and people are becomeing less fertile.
I've rambled on for a while now so I'll stop. Im sure you will all think Im a nut job if you read all of this post, but I think its all logical.
Evolution as a process cannot be effectively empirically tested because of the time scale. Not to say it can't be supported by other means. Think about it.
Alfonse wrote:
> we all except the fact that dinosaurs were real even though nobody
> was around to see it.
I don't believe they looked like the museums think. I think that their shape was alot different...
> we all except the fact that dinosaurs were real even though nobody
> was around to see it.
I don't believe they looked like the museums think. I think that their shape was alot different...
Cycloon wrote:
> Let's not even get onto ID then....
>
> Alfonse, it hasn't really. As Geffdof said, it's perhaps
> impossible to verify totally.
I don't really understand that, we all except the fact that dinosaurs were real even though nobody was around to see it.
> Let's not even get onto ID then....
>
> Alfonse, it hasn't really. As Geffdof said, it's perhaps
> impossible to verify totally.
I don't really understand that, we all except the fact that dinosaurs were real even though nobody was around to see it.
It's observable in small amounts over short periods of time. Darwin saw it in some species of bird, is that right? Or something. Biology isn't really my field so please excuse if I'm wrong there. I'm sure if I'm wrong on that then there are other examples of the small changes which evolution of this scale relies upon. It's not exactly the missing link between single celled organisms and humans, but given enough time, is there any reason it couldn't have that effect?
It would obviously be impossible to see how these changes have effect over several million years, yeah, but isn't the whole point of science to look at the evidence, and draw conclusions from it that are consistent with what we already know?
From your post, you only seem to have a problem with it because of the timescale.
Does this mean that a proposition suggesting anything happening over a longer period than reliable human history must be discarded as being bad science?
Perhaps it should be flagged as unprovable. But any more than that and you've just discarded an otherwise feasible idea, consistent with current knowledge, purely because of something that cannot be proved either way. Is that "good science"?
It has scientific base, which is more than can be said for anything else.
It would obviously be impossible to see how these changes have effect over several million years, yeah, but isn't the whole point of science to look at the evidence, and draw conclusions from it that are consistent with what we already know?
From your post, you only seem to have a problem with it because of the timescale.
Does this mean that a proposition suggesting anything happening over a longer period than reliable human history must be discarded as being bad science?
Perhaps it should be flagged as unprovable. But any more than that and you've just discarded an otherwise feasible idea, consistent with current knowledge, purely because of something that cannot be proved either way. Is that "good science"?
It has scientific base, which is more than can be said for anything else.
Page: