I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Evolution Graffiti

Hits: 46430 | Rating: (3.4) | Category: Arts & Literature | Added by: Snoogans
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Friday, October 12, 2007 1:11:54 PM
Addendum: Note that my Genetics example implies only two alleles determining height. Multiple alleles will skew the probability accordingly.

Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Friday, October 12, 2007 1:08:48 PM
"...it takes much greater faith to believe in the minute chances represented by evolution."

Evolution does *not* depend on chance but rather processes that are in turn limited by other processes. We didn't *happen* to come together as we did; the processes that preceded us simply made it an inevitability.


Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Friday, October 12, 2007 1:07:10 PM
"The chance that this whole planet, whole universe was created by coincidence..."

It's convenient to think of the universe as having been developed by coincidence but it's not strictly coincidence. Coincidence implies that the universe contains a vast range of possibilities and that we happened to form from an endless chain of accidents. This is *not* so. Every event or process the universe undergoes limits the succeeding results in a linear fashion.

[Here's a deal. I can sufficiently demonstrate how we are the result of linear processes but it'd simply take too much room to post out here. It's a lot of writing but if you want to hear it I'll make the effort and write to you in PM. If you want to read my explanation I'll write it for you but only if you agree to remain objective and docile so as not to waste my time.]


Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Friday, October 12, 2007 1:00:45 PM
"A simple example – if two tall people have a kid, that kid is very likely to be tall."

BlueAdept, please. That's not evolution, that's genetics. If two parents are heterozygous for the genes that determine a tall or short phenotype, then theoretically 1/4 of their children will be short. Genetics is responsible for why we have variation, but it is not responsible for why there exists a wild-type of each organism, which is attributed to natural selection which *does* fall directly under the domain of evolution. You should educate yourself some more.

"That is a semi-example of Natural selection"

It's not even "semi".

"But just because parts of evolution have validity to them does not make it wholly correct."

Agreed, except that the greater parts of evolution have not as of yet been proven false, therefore it is accepted as true. This is how science works.


Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Friday, October 12, 2007 12:56:10 PM
"And there has been no human who has existed without myelin sheaths and stop codes and such, so who is to say a perfect human wouldn't need them or at the least, have them?"

You just implied no human is perfect, which reinforces the contradiction in my previous post.

"It is a process over a long period of time that a given organism participates in that takes that organism from a state of relative simplicity to a more complex state, through things such as natural selection and mutation."

Your definition should negate why you think the complexity of the eye is incompatible with evolution. If indeed evolution is capable of transferring organisms to a higher state of complexity, why couldn't evolution apply the same principle to the eye?


Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Friday, October 12, 2007 12:53:29 PM
"It might not prove the existence of God as the title states, but it proves the complexity of the eye."

We already *know* the eye is complex, as is all life. The question is not whether it is complex, but whether said complexity could have arisen in nature without intelligent interference. According the evolution, the answer to that question is yes.

"If we were to be perfect, we would be the same as God, and that's not what He was trying to do."

If God wanted us to be created in His image, then, yes, we would be the same as God. As you have and I have already pointed out, we are not, and so there exists a paradox, or at least a contradiction. Let me guess: that part of the Bible wasn't literal either?


BlueAdept
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 75 Posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:41:20 PM
But just because parts of evolution have validity to them does not make it wholly correct. The chance that this whole planet, whole universe was created by coincidence, that my (rather remarkable, if I do say so myself lol) body was a product of time…I don’t care how long it took, the chance that all this could come together just so, is too infinitesimal.

An atheist friend of mine once told me that he wished he could have the faith I do to believe in God, but in my mind, it takes much greater faith to believe in the minute chances represented by evolution.


BlueAdept
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 75 Posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:41:12 PM
My thoughts on what evolution is? It is a process over a long period of time that a given organism participates in that takes that organism from a state of relative simplicity to a more complex state, through things such as natural selection and mutation.

Now, I will say this…parts of evolution are correct. A simple example – if two tall people have a kid, that kid is very likely to be tall. The same can be said for if two short people have a child. That is a semi-example of Natural selection, taking out that there really is no obvious advantage to being tall over being short. Since we still have short people in the world, we see that as true.


BlueAdept
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 75 Posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:40:02 PM
*sigh* Where to begin...to save myself time and space, I'll point you to this video which does a fairly good, if not complete take on the complexity of the eye. It might not prove the existence of God as the title states, but it proves the complexity of the eye.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/380760/does_god_exist_the_eye/

Now about God and Us. There's nothing to state that God is vain. He created us in His image, yes, but there is nothing that says He wanted us to be perfect. If we were to be perfect, we would be the same as God, and that's not what He was trying to do. And there has been no human who has existed without myelin sheaths and stop codes and such, so who is to say a perfect human wouldn't need them or at the least, have them? There is no comparison.


Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:21:42 PM
On final note: *why* and on what grounds do you consider the eye too complex? Surely you can present some physiological evidence and knowledge that backs up that claim? I feel you're just regurgitating what you've been told by the popular religion community or a pastor. (Ted Haggard made the same claim that the eye is seemingly impossible without intelligent design and has actually, albeit unwittingly, demonstrated he knows next to nothing of the processes of evolution.)

Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:19:56 PM
To me it makes more sense that, yes, we were shaped and developed by the environment and yes, in that sense, *designed* from the environment, but that this designing is necessarily *unintelligent*. Life has every appearance of having been designed step-wise and unintelligently, with each further development thus enabling yet further development, which builds upon itself again and again to form an organism. It's useful thinking of ourselves as nothing more than the sum of an arrangement of groups of different cells that perform different yet complimentary functions.

I fear perhaps your rejection of evolution stems from, *perhaps*, your misinterpretation of it, and so I would ask that you explain, in your own words, what you feel evolution is.


Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:15:49 PM
"...and I'm certainly not like that."

That is certainly appreciated, but I don't feel you are keeping as open a mind as you claim to.

Think about this: an omnipotent being creates a creature with the intention of that creature being in his (omnipotent being's) image. One would then conclude that this being would want to make that creature as perfect as possible so as to adequately reflect his (omnipotent being's) image, assuming of course that this being is vain, which is a fair assumption to make if we further assume this is the Judeo-Christian God found in the Bible. Okay. So why, indeed, is the creature not perfect? Why do we need myelin sheaths around our neurons to help send signals when a perfect being shouldn't need such support? Why does protein production require multiple STOP codes rather than just one?


Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:11:30 PM
"Even disregarding the human eye(which I have never heard anyone prove for evolution...it is not so simple as you think)"

It's not as complex as you think. Anything can be broken down to its sum parts but in doing so we'll only find that some parts rely upon others to work. All this means is that those structures existed before the others were formed upon them and so on and so forth. Anyone who says it's too complicated hasn't either done adequate research or is deliberately neglecting the potency of evolution.

"And speaking of following, I'm willing to bet that there as many 'blind' followers of Evolution as there are of Creationism."

Of course. This is nothing new. But do note that the validity and truthfulness of an argument is mutually exclusive from how many people happen to accept it. History is filled with so many former popular ideas (supported by the majority) that have since been debunked by science.


BlueAdept
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 75 Posts
Monday, October 08, 2007 3:44:16 PM
Even disregarding the human eye(which I have never heard anyone prove for evolution...it is not so simple as you think), there are too many things that don't work with Evolution for me to ever follow it.

And speaking of following, I'm willing to bet that there as many "blind" followers of Evolution as there are of Creationism. But that doesn't make me one of them, as hopefully this points out. I've asked myself all the questions, I've thought of things through both viewpoints and still Creationism makes more sense.

That's not to say I'm going to condemn you guys and tell you that you're all going to Hell...I keep an open mind. Too many people take the stereotypical 'holier-than-thou, look down my nose at every other belief' as the way all Christians act, and I'm certainly not like that.


Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2007 4:38:03 PM
"You tell me how the woodpecker, or how the human eye evolved..."

That you even need ask how the human eye evolved puts you rather in a bad position. This is a popular case for creationists to refer to because they cannot even conceive of how the development of an eye can be broken down into a step-by-step process. It's been done before and I'm not an optometrist but if you really wanted an answer, I can direct you towards those who can, yes, fully defend evolution's processes in respect to the eye.

What you're not considering is really how simple the eye indeed is. If an omnipotent being (God) designed the eye, why did it only enable the eye to process light radiation from such a limited spectrum? Wouldn't an omnipotent, caring being want its creation to have the best sight possible? Creationism just doesn't add up.


wtfstoner55
Male, 13-17, Australia
 189 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2007 8:02:29 AM
heh... my I.Q tests say 155 to 160... I say you're wrong Blue Adept. Evolution is true and I go with that guy who said once they can prove how to make a cell, evolution is set in stone, pretty much. Did anyone else notice that the pictures were perfect, but they had been put together from different pictures? If you look at the rail on the bridge, you'll see that it must be different photos taken from different angles, yet the graffiti matches up perfectly. And all this evolution v creationist crap, if you're happy in blindly following something that covered its ass by saying "god is mysterious, you can't prove or disprove that" you can't go ridiculing evolution because it's "just a theory" and may be wrong. I believe it's right, because scientist made an informed decision on it, not decided to tell some people stories that they had no idea would have such a big effect. Go watch that episode of Penn and Teller: Bullpoo on Creationism.

BlueAdept
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 75 Posts
Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:51:35 PM
lol I'm retarded? As this is coming from a 13-17 yr old, I won't take offense. Like Broadwaylove(and I actually kinda don't want to mention it, cause it's so similar that it may appear I'm being spurious) all the I.Q. tests I've taken have put me in the 120-140 range. So my intelligence is not in question, merely what I believe.

You tell me how the woodpecker, or how the human eye evolved(and that's only a couple of the many things evolution can't explain), and I'll back Evolution. Until then, I'll believe what I've found to be the most logical explanation.


NumbuhZero
Female, 18-29, Southern US
 862 Posts
Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:12:00 PM
That kind of art creeps me out.
Just the way it's drawn.
Like.
I don't know.

unintrasting
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 1134 Posts
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 8:07:05 PM
that was pretty cool but i can't imagne how a bird would turn into a bear or imagine a dinosaur walking around on its knees..

Suicism
Male, 18-29, Western US
 3658 Posts
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 6:04:37 AM
Ha ha, I think I recognize your writing-style up there, Mr. 'unnamed poster -' it's been doing that to me lately as well.

Broadway, cut "Lost_in_time" some slack, eh? He went through great pains assuring everybody that the post in question wasn't directed towards any particular individual, especially you!


BangYourDead
Female, 13-17, Eastern US
 159 Posts
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:54:07 PM
that was pretty sweet.

BroadwayLove
Female, 18-29, Southern US
 191 Posts
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:57:24 PM
ah see, I don't care that much to have a row with someone.

Devolution was a bad term to use. By Devolution I mean that rather than evolving into a more complex organism, one evolves into a less complex organism.

It was just my personal (and I will admit uneducated) opinion.

As for the person who made the digs at me being an idiot:
It is rather perplexing that you would venture so far as to make a guess at my intelligence from a single post on a dinky little internet site.
If you must know. (and I know that you will not believe me) I scored a 130 on the Stanford-Binet IQ test.


Brokenbones
Male, 18-29, Western US
 223 Posts
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:10:45 PM
Blue Adept is a retard. -.-

Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:05:24 PM
"I just have one question...if we evolved from sushi... where did the SUSHI come from?"

The broader question you should be asking, LKJSlain, is not from what other organism an organism evolved - as that only pushes the question further - but rather how did an individual cell (eukaryotic or prokaryotic) form. If scientists can suggest the means by which the first cell formed and demonstrate such in a lab, explaining all subsequent life would be a piece of cake. We need not look for answers at www.godandscience.org as, assuredly, it yields none.

"Evolution is not a science...it is a theory, and an incorrect one at that."

BlueAdept... I swear...

If you can prove evolution to be false, I promise you the scientific community will gradually abandon evolution. However, evolution as a theory has to this day not been proven false, which coincidentally is why it is so widely accepted.


Overmann
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 3156 Posts
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:00:55 PM
BroadwayLove:

"If I believed in evolution, I would think that devolution would be possible."

Devolution implies an organism reverting to a precursor species (traits, chemical make-up, all), something which at this time has not been reflected in the evidence.

"It goes along with that law of Science that I'm too lazy to look up that says that the universe will always go towards chaos and disorder."

Wrong. You're thinking that an organism, because of entropy, will break down to *exactly* the same species it was before (devolution), when in actually if evolution was incompatible with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we'd lose whole organ systems and limbs and life as a whole would not be possible. See my post here on page 4 addressed to BlueAdept.

I expect, BroadwayLove, that unless you thoroughly familiarize yourself with scientific premises, you and I will have a rather serious row on these forums sometime in the future.


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.