Evolution and Creationism

[Khadgar]

So, theists, if life is designed. Why is it designed so badly? Why are the same failed solutions tried for problems over and over? Why do innovations not get shared with the entirety of life?

[Desperate Measures]

So, theists, if life is designed. Why is it designed so badly? Why are the same failed solutions tried for problems over and over? Why do innovations not get shared with the entirety of life?

Why do they follow a system at all? Why do we have muscle and bones and organs beneath our skin instead of a magic smokey substance?

[Khadgar]

So, theists, if life is designed. Why is it designed so badly? Why are the same failed solutions tried for problems over and over? Why do innovations not get shared with the entirety of life?

Why do they follow a system at all? Why do we have muscle and bones and organs beneath our skin instead of a magic smokey substance?

Also thermodynamics is a pain in the ass. Having to eat and shit?

[Desperate Measures]

Why do they follow a system at all? Why do we have muscle and bones and organs beneath our skin instead of a magic smokey substance?

Also thermodynamics is a pain in the ass. Having to eat and shit?

Eating is fun. Shitting is like SO boring.

[Xsyne]

So, theists, if life is designed. Why is it designed so badly? Why are the same failed solutions tried for problems over and over? Why do innovations not get shared with the entirety of life?

Because the game's on tonight and God's DVR is on the fritz so if he wants to catch it he has to clock out early.

[Napkiraly]

T'aint, but good luck with that.

yes it is, we still dont no what made the universe, therefore god is as logical a theory as any other, it has evidence, and it agrees with observation

Our biggest bet is the Big Bang theory which has a lot more evidence for it than God creating the universe.

[Napkiraly]

Also thermodynamics is a pain in the ass. Having to eat and shit?

Eating is fun. Shitting is like SO boring.

Depends. Have you ever played battleshits with your pals? So much fun after a night of eating bean tacos and Indian food.

[Khadgar]

How many of these Evolution VS Creationism threads must we have?

This is getting stupid.

Every six weeks. Give or take. We have a great big one about every six months I think. Boring as fuck all really. We get a new batch of theists every so often and they try the same idiotic arguments every fucking time.

[Mavorpen]

How many of these Evolution VS Creationism threads must we have?

This is getting stupid.

It used to be much worse. Just wait until summer.

[Khadgar]

How many of these Evolution VS Creationism threads must we have?

This is getting stupid.

It used to be much worse. Just wait until summer.

I suspect this one spawned due to spring break.

[Napkiraly]

How many of these Evolution VS Creationism threads must we have?

This is getting stupid.

It used to be much worse. Just wait until summer.

I wonder how much traffic there'll be.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Eating is fun. Shitting is like SO boring.

Depends. Have you ever played battleshits with your pals? So much fun after a night of eating bean tacos and Indian food.

I...I...What?

[Chinese Regions]

Also thermodynamics is a pain in the ass. Having to eat and shit?

Eating is fun. Shitting is like SO boring.

Newspapers, having something to read while you shit and a backup supply of loo roll.
Can't exactly do the same with tablets pcs.

[Chinese Regions]

So, theists, if life is designed. Why is it designed so badly? Why are the same failed solutions tried for problems over and over? Why do innovations not get shared with the entirety of life?

Stephen Fry: How can you tell that God is a civil engineer? Because when he designed the human body, he put the recreational area right next to the sewage outflow.

[Salandriagado]

So is there room to believe in both? (not that I do)

Not if you plan on maintaining any kind of claim to knowing what you're talking about.

No, it is fucking not beyond our ability to study. Or are dinosaurs all some sort of hoax?

As I said before, those are bones. Bones I've studied well, I might add. However, bones don't paint the full picture.

Bones, plus genetics.

Evolution is observable. How can anybody deny it?

Correction: Microevolution is observable. Macroevolution has not been observed.

If only Christians had the faith of an atheist...

Continued wrongness? What do you mean by "macroevolution"? Speciation? That's been observed. If not that, then what?

I used to just reject the evolution theory, but after sifting through it a little bit, I have discovered that it is possible for evolution and the creationist theory to coexist.

There is no "creationist theory".

Macroevolution is same and microevolution, just over longer period of time. If I walk a day in a direction for fifty years, I will have walked just over or, 182.62 kilometres or, 0.18262 megameter.
What you are basically saying is, you accept I walked ten meters a day in a direction but that I didn't walk 0.18262 megameter in same direction over fifty years.

On the other hand, suppose you were observed walking in London one day, and in New York one year later. These facts alone do not prove that you walked all the way, nor do they give any a priori reason to believe that walking from London to New York might be possible.

Except that we've seen the bridge you built across the Atlantic, the footprints you left in between, and photographs of you at many points on the way.

T'aint, but good luck with that.

yes it is, we still dont no what made the universe, therefore god is as logical a theory as any other, it has evidence, and it agrees with observation

Kindly provide said evidence, it isn't a theory and it doesn't agree with shit.

(Image)

Text=/=life. The main thing I have with macro-evolution is the changing number of chromosomes. From what I am given to understand, in modern humans, the addition of a group of chromosomes never ends well.

Nope. Changes in chromosome counts without negative effects have been observed.

No. One is a scientific proposition that has undergone peer review and strenous testing and re-testing, and the other is merely superstitious woo.

ah, a believer in 'science'. 50 years ago, you would be believing that homosexuality is a disease. I applaud your forward thinking. Not really. They need to be compatible in some respect, if both sides would get off their high horses.

Not in the slightest. Kindly provide a peer-reviewed paper that concludes that homosexuality is a disease.

[Sociobiology]

ah, a believer in 'science'. 50 years ago, you would be believing that homosexuality is a disease. I applaud your forward thinking. Not really. They need to be compatible in some respect, if both sides would get off their high horses.

Not in the slightest. Kindly provide a peer-reviewed paper that concludes that homosexuality is a disease.

In fact just about the only researchers in the field concluded quite the opposite, what the public believed on the other hand...

[Sociobiology]

So, theists, if life is designed. Why is it designed so badly? Why are the same failed solutions tried for problems over and over? Why do innovations not get shared with the entirety of life?

why do humans get hemroids and detached retina's when there is no reason we have to, if humans have a designer the best you can say about it is it is incompetent.

[Chinese Regions]

No, it is fucking not beyond our ability to study. Or are dinosaurs all some sort of hoax?

As I said before, those are bones. Bones I've studied well, I might add. However, bones don't paint the full picture.

And fossilised shit, feathers, footprints. And the fact evolution happens all the time, in the present day where we can study living creatures, studying much more than just bones, faeces, feathers and footprints.
You think that a two dinosaurs with similar skeletons will not have the same organs? (of course sometimes it happens; convergent evolution, but that in itself is still proof of evolution).

[Chinese Regions]

Correction: That is still text. it is still words of the English language. it has micro-evolved, not macro-evolved. Macro-evolution would be if the words turned into bacon (I might be hungry haha).

So it's just that you can't comprehend our different sense of scale, fine, we'll through the entire spectrum if you want? Not satisfied? Wait several millennia to have your descendants evolve the ability to see UV, X-rays and Gamma rays.

[Sociobiology]

Correction: That is still text. it is still words of the English language. it has micro-evolved, not macro-evolved. Macro-evolution would be if the words turned into bacon (I might be hungry haha).

so macro-evolution is pokemon evolution
then you are correct it has never happened...Nor has any biologist every claimed it has happened...
you don't go from fish to human in one step.

[Mavorpen]

Correction: That is still text. it is still words of the English language. it has micro-evolved, not macro-evolved. Macro-evolution would be if the words turned into bacon (I might be hungry haha).

so macro-evolution is pokemon evolution
then you are correct it has never happened...Nor has any biologist every claimed it has happened...
you don't go from fish to human in one step.

But I was promised!

[Ostroeuropa]

I'll come back when he bothers to answer this, feel free to tg me when he does.

I'll use the imaginary buckfish again. (Imaginary Buckfish Episode 8, Too Many Sequels.)
There exists an imaginary buckfish in this scenario.
The entire species exists in a salt water lake, and is very well adapted to it.
It is the same colour as the vegetation to match it's background, and is an omnivore, preying on smaller fish that try to eat it's stuff, and plants. It's relatively medium sized, but there are no predators above it on the food chain.

One day, erosion causes the lake to be connected to a river nearby, and some of the buckfish decide to go down river, which eventually leads to the ocean.
The ones who stayed in the lakes will over time suffer evolutionary pressure, the ones most able to adapt to fresh water being added over time will survive, until we reach a point where those who can survive easily in fresh water are all that are left. After a while, the trait that allows them to survive in salt water will be discarded since if they lose it, they don't suffer any negative consequences. (MOST evolutionary changes are totally neutral in nature, like this. They neither harm nor benefit the species in it's habitat.)
The ones who ended up in the sea had none of this pressure, and will be salt-water adapted.
The ones who stayed in the initial lake don't really need to adapt further.
They will remain vegetation coloured etc.

The ones who moved into the ocean go down into the depths, to a state of almost total darkness.
They have no need of eyes, and small eyes are a good thing here, since having two soft vulnerable spots on your face is a Bad Idea if they don't have any use. Eventually eyes get small enough to be negligible, and cease to exist at all. In the state of darkness, the pressure placed on blending in with vegetation is relaxed, allowing their colour to drift around into new hues, eventually settling on a neutral grey colour since this requires less energy than to colour ones skin.
There is little vegetation in the depths, and their diet consists almost entirely of smaller fish that they track by sensing movement. Pressure is applied to be quick enough to catch the prey, now that their usual tactic of ambush is no longer viable. As such, their fins will become more powerful, and their bodies more streamlined over time, with those unable to keep up with these changes dying off.
We may see pressure placed on becomming like a snake, where sensing vibration in the water is crucial to survival.
Due to the increased pressure in the depths, bone structure is selected for to be stronger, and size can increase proportionally, which is useful for a predator, and since they work by sensing movement, increasing the surface area of their body acts like increasing the size of their eardrum.

Now, suppose I grab one from each specimen and compare them.
One is green, the other grey.
One has eyes, the other does not.
One lives in fresh water, the other salt water.
etc.

They are both evolved/descended from:
The Imaginary Saltwater Buckfish
but have now become
The Imaginary Freshwater Buckfish
and
The Imaginary Deep-Sea Buckfish
(Though the chances of us naming them this is highly unlikely. You'll notice that we tend to name shit randomly and only later discover how it is related to other things in the tree. We're far more likely to call them: The Imaginary Freshwater Lurker, and the Imaginary Deep-sea Seeker, then discover "Hey, these are both descended from the imaginary Saltwater Buckfish! At which points creationists bitch about different kinds not producing etc etc. Humans are just "Hairless apes." If we'd been called that, the "Different kinds hurp durp!" wouldn't work now would it. But we called ourselves humans, and so you complain we can't be apes.)

Just change the enviromental pressures on two groups of the same species, and you'll see evolution happen. (Or hell, don't do that and just dump two species into geologically isolated, environmentally identical areas and you might see some noticable changes, there is no one size fits all solution.)
Over time, enough drift has occured as to make them radically different and unable to interbreed. At this point, they are a new species.

What part of that scenario do creationists disagree is possible and why?
If you agree it's all possible, you accept evolution is possible. And at that point, why don't you think it's LIKELY or even DEFINATELY occuring?

(if my fellow evolutionists like this post they are welcome to take it and use it later. I find that providing a definate example tends to make them unable to come up with any objection except cattle noises. An example of every change I described is available, i simply piled them all onto one creature to make the contrast between old and new as quick as possible to forgo it being a 100 page long post.)


Now, to the creationists. Before you make any more uninformed objections to evolution, I want you to answer the question above seeing as I HAVE addressed all your issues in this block of text.


There.
Educate yourself and don't come back until you can answer the question I posed.


^This is practically compulsory now.
Buckfish Mark 8

Just dumping this in response to New American Nation.
Answer the post please, or admit you don't care about the truth.

[CVT Temp]

So it's just that you can't comprehend our different sense of scale, fine, we'll through the entire spectrum if you want? Not satisfied? Wait several millennia to have your descendants evolve the ability to see UV, X-rays and Gamma rays.

Any changes he can't ignore count as "micro." Thus, what actually constitutes the mythical "macro-evolution" becomes an increasingly receding moving goalpost. The problem for the creationist is that all the evolution that we can observe and have to accept would make the increasingly vague notion of "macro-evolution" so useless that even common ancestry of all life would count as "micro-evolution."

[Sociobiology]

so macro-evolution is pokemon evolution
then you are correct it has never happened...Nor has any biologist every claimed it has happened...
you don't go from fish to human in one step.

But I was promised!

I don't get it.


I wonder what NSG or the internet would be like without the Dunning–Kruger effect to entertain us...

[Ostroeuropa]

But I was promised!

I don't get it.


I wonder what NSG or the internet would be like without the Dunning–Kruger effect to entertain us...

Whenever I try to imagine alternate realities lately I get that ripple effect and the day-dream music cue thing from tv...

And then I see seaponies.
No matter what.
"I wonder what if bush was never elected..."
SHOO BE DOO
"I wonder what that party is gonna be like."
SHOO BE DOO

etc.

It's a problem. I need help.
It happened ever since a friend asked me the "What would happen if bush was never elected?" question and I sent him seaponies and said "This." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4TedkQP_hM