Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Taller people are more attractive.
That alone can account for an increase in height, but I am sure there are other factors.
Dragar said:At the 'very' beginning I am unsure. I don't think anyone knows. There may have been a very simple species that was produced by abiogenesis. God may have created just one. Or perhaps he put down multiple, very simple species and let them evolve from there.
Be careful of using the word 'mutation'. A mutation refers to a change in a specific genetic code - of one individual. An evolution refers to a change in an entire population. I would rephrase your last sentance to read 'one species that evolved into a diverse number of species, that we find today.'
Dragar
Kasey said:Well, your going on the off-chance that the mutation would have actually occurred at the right time and the right place and that THAT mutation would have been suceeded by a much more needful mutation afterwards that would not contradict the previous mutation and therefore, constant mutation on mutations that wouldnt cause harm but good.
Thats a major gamble.
Well thats just it. Evolution such as what we have been talking about is a theory and after all this time, has not been proven.
Dragar said:It's a major gamble if you are only considering, for instance, a population of ten over a few generations.
But what about a population of several million, over thousands upon thousands of generations?
Throw your dice enough times, and you're bound to get a six.
As an example, go find some coins. Drop them randomly on your desk.
Take the ones that got heads face up. They 'survived', because they got the good mutation. Move them to the side.
Pick the ones that got tails face up, and drop them randomly again. How many 'generations' of coins will it take before most of your population is heads? Fewer than you might think.
You can make it more difficult, and only let half the heads survive, or a third, or a quarter. You'll still get a population of heads in a very short space of time.
Mutations aren't fifty/fifty, true. But you have a lot more coins, and a lot more generations.
It's not proven any more than gravitational interactions are proven, no.
But I consider both gravitational interactions and evolutionary theory to have sufficient evidence for belief.
Dragar
Kasey said:Well, if no one knows then there is no way you can prove it.
It ammounts to the same thing does it not? The entire population would have to have mutated in order for evolution to occur. If thats the case, then your still taking an incredibly large gamble for everything to work out correctly.
Wait a minute, Your taking this from a standpoint that there are millions involved already. What evidence is there to suggest that there was more than one "thing", if none at all, in the beginning to hatch the evolution process.
What do you mean by gravitational interactions?
Dragar said:Nope. We just admit we don't know for sure. We don't know anything for sure, and we won't even be able to make an educated guess about how many 'original' forms of life abiogenesis produced until we get a good theory of abiogenesis up and running, that we can test and see if it works.
But this is not evolutionary theory. This has nothing to do with it.
No, only one member of the population needs to have 'mutated'. Some of the offspring from that member inherit the mutation, naturally (in asexual reproduction all the offspring will carry the mutation).
Dragar
If your considering a "species" that procreates asexually, then yes, I can see that, yet, how can even a single asexual create have a mutation that would actually been beneficial to its survival when all mutations observed in animals today and of humans has been harmful? Sickle Cell Anemia will eventually kill the people who carry it and all animal mutations have always been a hindrance.
Dragar said:This isn't what evolutionary theory concerns itself with. This is abiogenesis. You may think God created life on Earth. If this is the case, then God created as many as He chose.
At a quantum scale, we have no idea how gravitational interactions take place. Like, for instance, between an electron and another electron. How does the mass of one electron influence the mass of another? We don't know. We do not have a theory explaining how this happens, though we have suspicions and theories which make predictions. We haven't yet found what those theories predict.
But, even if we don't know how they happen, we have good reason to think they do.
Dragar
Dragar said:I really wish you'd stop saying that.
Is height a universal factor, though, or just amongst certain cultures? I am starting to change my view point to yours, however. Is there a scientific consensus on this issue? I'm quite fond of trusting that sort of thing.
Dragar
LoL, that's ok, I am relatively short too (5'9), although my girlfriend is tall (5'10).
Kasey said:If your considering a "species" that procreates asexually, then yes, I can see that, yet, how can even a single asexual create have a mutation that would actually been beneficial to its survival when all mutations observed in animals today and of humans has been harmful? Sickle Cell Anemia will eventually kill the people who carry it and all animal mutations have always been a hindrance.
Kasey said:Evolution concerns itself with the origins of the species, with mutations of a supposed asexual creature in the beginning.
However, like you have stated. Its a theory. Personally, I dont buy into theories until they are absolutely provable, thats why Im currently against Evolution.
Im open to the possibility of it being true, but it seems like it might be along time before science makes a provable test case
Thats an interesting subject. I havent studied it that much. I guess I should. But Im tired now - Ive been up a long time. Im going to bed.
Kasey said:Evolution concerns itself with the origins of the species, with mutations of a supposed asexual creature in the beginning. However, like you have stated. Its a theory. Personally, I dont buy into theories until they are absolutely provable, thats why Im currently against Evolution.
Im open to the possibility of it being true, but it seems like it might be along time before science makes a provable test case.
Good discussion you two... but if you don't mind...Kasey said:If your considering a "species" that procreates asexually, then yes, I can see that, yet, how can even a single asexual create have a mutation that would actually been beneficial to its survival when all mutations observed in animals today and of humans has been harmful? Sickle Cell Anemia will eventually kill the people who carry it and all animal mutations have always been a hindrance.
The atomic theory of chemistry explains how matter interacts, but does not explain the origins of matter. Therefore the atomic theory of chemistry is flawed.Kasey said:Yes. If you cant explain the origins of matter through a theory about existence and creation, then its flawed. Evolution explains how life evolved, I understand that, but it doesnt explain the origins of the "matter" that was there before the evolving.
Hence, flawed.
Atheists have no religious bias to prevent acceptance of a sound scientific theory.Kasey said:Well, it just seems to me like Athiests always like to go towards evolution, I guess thats why i seem to mix them up a lot.
Evolution is not an explanation of "origins." It is an explanation for the diversity of life. There is no single theory in science that explains the origin of everything, from galaxies, to planets, to snowflakes, to life. Each of these questions falls under a different domain, with different areas of expertise, using different sets of data, and different tools to study the questions.Kasey said:In regards to your question. Yes.
To me, any explanations of origins needs to be able to explain where matter comes from otherwise its not fact, its theory. A sound theory or provable fact would be able to answer those questions.
At least, thats the way I see it.
In fact, the same page goes on say:Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Sometimes environments change slowly, like the building of a mountain range, or the intercession of a growing dessert. Sometimes they cange suddenly, like when a big rock or icy ball of dirt slams into the planet. Then we get mass extinctions.Kasey said:Ok, I understand that, but why does it take a species so long to adapt to an environment? That right there leads me to believe that survival could not be possible becuase your going on the off-chance that the environment didnt change to be a threat to the species. How can you prove that the environment was contually stable for millions of millions of years for the species to survive?
Evolution works with what it has, and that is the tetrapodal body plan (four limbs, stemming from our lobfinned fish roots). The four limbs of the tetrapod body plan are pretty well wired into our genes. Notice that bats and birds adapted two of their four limbs to wings, because they had to work with what they had.Kasey said:Interesting. So, the creatures with the longer neck would be better suited to that particular evironment because they can get to food easier, therefore, probablitiy wise, their chances of coming out on top and surviving among the short creaters are increased.
Large, noticeable changes require large ammounts of years. If this is the case, why havent humans, ever since we became humans, grown an extra pair of arms to help with all of our domestic lives?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?