GameBanshee Forums

Thanks for the word, i kind of had colocquilism in mind, but i checked it out and that means something different, oh well.

How can you say that evolution is observable, when was the last time you saw something actually evolving? I know that sounds slightly banal, but still one can not absolutely proove it, it requires huge bounds in logic, just the same as any religion.

See your question was a lot more specific than Wav's i didn't have a way of not answering without sounding half a$$ed.

I know, that was the idea

I'm not saying you can watch *an* organism evolve but there are organisms which have a much shorter lifespan than humans, and it is possible to examine several generations of offspring and observe differences between them...

Another possibility is vernacularism... as in a word that has passed into the vernacular (or native language).

Sleep, evolution is indeed observable. Let’s look a microevolition: The classic example is selective breeding. Over several generations, do you deny that by preferentially breeding dogs with certain traits, man has created breeds of dogs that look wholly different from the wolves that they once were? Now what if we were to give the process more time than just a few generations? And just for the hell of it, take out man’s influence on which traits to exaggerate by breeding, and replace it with preferential breeding by success at merely surviving…

That one seems more likely (i have actually heard of that word )

True but as much of that could be changed by environment ie male fish turning into females due to high deposits of oestrogen in the water. I just think the time frame for evolution is a little off, every few years it seems to go up by a few billion anyone know what darwin orginally surmised?

Also Darwin is not the most stable of influences he was very bitter at the church which he felt had betrayed him. So whatever views he came to were tainted by hate.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG><snip>Also Darwin is not the most stable of influences he was very bitter at the church which he felt had betrayed him. So whatever views he came to were tainted by hate.</STRONG>

Well, and the church was not fond of Darwin, so the churcs respons to darwinism might have been clouded by that to

Dp evolved from an organism, and the scientists are still puzzled.

I still think that it was created. An organism just can't happen. You can't throw a bunch of watch parts into a box, and hope by over night it evolves into a watch. It had to be created.

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: KramoR ]

I did not say that either were right or wrong....

Some interesting facts for you..

Darwin is said to have denounced all of his ideas on his death bed, but this is conjecture due to this being reported by his wife who - not wantng to look out of place in the society of the time - allegedly came up with the story.

In answer to Wav, you say take out mans influence, but isn't it man who put the two together in the first place.

BTW i realise i am out of my depth, but i will continue eith my futile arguments

I think when you put it in a science lab, the environmental effects are rather more carefully monitored...

I'm not saying that everything Darwin said was right, theories of evolution have changed as more observations were made. All I'm saying is that the change happens.

Darwin's motivations in looking for an alternative explanation don't necessarily make his own explanation false. If people were always happy with the explanation they had, and never questioned it, there would never be any progress.

@Kramor - does a belief in evolution necessarily rule out a belief that something had to create it in the first place? Can't evolution have taken place since creation?

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Georgi ]

Originally posted by Georgi:
<STRONG>I'm not saying that everything Darwin said was right, theories of evolution have changed as more observations were made. All I'm saying is that the change happens.

Darwin's motivations in looking for an alternative explanation don't necessarily make his own explanation false. If people were always happy with the explanation they had, and never questioned it, there would never be any progress.</STRONG>

I have to agree with you about progress.

Change does indeed happen, just how and why are the questions that need answering after that point.

Just out of interest how many of the pro evolution are scientists or of a mathematical nature?

Well surely if evolution is defined as change, and you are saying change does happen, then you are saying evolution is a fact? Not necessarily one specific theory of evolution, just in itself.

Let me see, the last maths/science I did was GCSE... which would be 4 years ago No, I'm no expert on evolutionary theory...

In one way yes. But, the way I was taught about evolution, everything was stemed from a bug in the water. Which through process of evolution, became man.

What I don't understand is how we are supposed to come from apes. I just don't see it could be possable.

*I can't spell worth a damn today.*

Originally posted by KramoR:
<STRONG><snip>What I don't understand is how we are supposed to come from apes. I just don't see it could be possable.

*I can't spell worth a damn today.*</STRONG>

Well with 95%+ of the same genematerial with some species I would say that this is acutally a very plausible theory just looking at numbers.
Of course a lot of people will recent such a theory because apes are ... well... apes

You are trying to arrive at a conclusion, when i do not necessarily wish to, i prefer to keep asking questions than to arrive at a definitive answer.

I love the idea that you die as soon as you figure out exactly what the world is really about.

OMG I know where the missing link is. He will probably post later so be nice to him.

@Sleep I'm not looking for an answer. I don't have one, and I'm not especially bothered about it. I'm going to carry on living the same little life anyway. I was just contributing to the debate

It seems to me that people who are scientific/mathematical by nature end up beleiving in the Evolution theory where as more artistic people struggle with the evolution idea and end up beleiving some form of spirituality, of course there are people who believe in neither, and there are those who believe in both.

Well, I am the more artistic, and I believe in some kind of evolution... But I don't really think too hard about what I believe in, like I said.

Well being more scientific interested and mathematicl myself - I don't neascecary support evolution, but I find it to be more plausible compared to say creationism.
I have serious issues with creationism where I can't get thing to match

The closest thing to a God I at present could commint myself to say existed would be the singularity know as the Big Bang
That could be (a) God.
But as for a "Creator God" as in creatism, that made the planets, Adam and Eve etc. that I can't simply understand, and especially not if the world is created 6000 years ago.

As may be apparent neither do i, i haven't given 'things' a long delibiration for a long time, maybe i should, then i could add something of relevance to the debate

I don't think it's true that artistic people necessarily think less logically

Some people seem to have more of a need for something to believe in than others. And maybe at some point I will decide there's some big spiritual emptiness inside me and I want something to fill it. And then I might think about it some more.

Incidentally a friend of mine did exactly that. She researched several religions, and became a Christian. She was for a few years, but it lapsed. She said she didn't think she had really believed it in the first place, she just wanted to believe.

BTW I apologise if I'm repeating stuff that has already been said in this thread, I've only read the first page and a half