Jump to content

Home

The Pub Council


Brighteyes

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I have my Evolution notes from lectures here and it says that it's called "Divergance Evolution", Meaning that Archaeopteryx evolved into something else and that split into a few new species then that split into other new species.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/images/hominid_divergence.gif

 

As there is no way to measure the exact date that the chicken or the egg was made then you have to say that in theory the ameoba came first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by VikingLarz

No. You go roll around in nuclear waste and BAM! Evolution hits you right there.....or kills you.

That's not evolution, that's mutation.

 

Also, a summarize:

 

(1) "Producing" eggs is not a privilege given to chickens (read: BIRDS), many animals use this form of reproduction nowadays.

(2) Long before birds or even "pre-birds" evolved, eggs where a common form of reproduction, so the EGG ITSELF was there before even the first birds came up. Although that's a bit untrue, because it seems that birds directly evolved from dinosaurs. But mammals somehow too, so I feel free to ignore that.

(3) If you ask the question "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" the only spockian answer is: teh egg. Because eggs came before chicken-birds.

(4) If you ask the question the right way: "What came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?" we have to differ things a bit, because: (A) only a chicken would be able to produce a chicken-egg. There cannot be a chicken-egg coming from a pre-chicken. Then a (the first) chicken is a must for a chicken-egg to be produced. But that's only if we consider a chicken-egg as "egg that came out of a chicken". But if we say that (B) the chicken-egg is defined by "egg that contains a chicken", the chicken-egg must have been there first.

 

 

 

So.. what's a chicken-egg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Brighteyes

I have my Evolution notes from lectures here and it says that it's called "Divergance Evolution", Meaning that Archaeopteryx evolved into something else and that split into a few new species then that split into other new species.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/images/hominid_divergence.gif

 

As there is no way to measure the exact date that the chicken or the egg was made then you have to say that in theory the ameoba came first.

 

okay, so question, just so we know. Evolution doiesn't occur to a single animal when it's alive does it, it happens with tiny changes and so on with their offspring. Like the dodo which used to be able to fly until it came to an island (esclapycos?) where it didn't need to fly (food on the ground an all) so it's offspring had slightly smaller wings, (like one out of five of their offspring and that's not canon) and then they had offspring with slightly smaller wings and so on until they couldn't fly and then man came along and ate them all because they were easy to catch and apparently very tasty.

 

That's evolution though, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Joshi

That's evolution though, right?

Naja, .. beside the fact that size doesn't necessarily matters, no, I cannot disagree with your nice little annectode picturizing the principle of evolution. At least more than diggin' through nuclear waste. ;D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natural: Occuring in Nature with no input from mankind.

 

Synthetic: Using natural ingredients to create something that could never actually occur on it's own without mankind's meddling.

 

But yes,.. the Earth is (for the purposes of argument) a closed system. Anything and everything that happens on the planet can be said to totally natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......................(No i'll humour it) :dozey:

 

Well that's the point isn't it. If he ain't real you can't ask him, meaning he isn't real. The whole point of the conversation was to prove wether God existed and how powerful he was if proven real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by VikingLarz

Yea. Or if your athaist Mother Nature and Father Time.

Or simply 'the universe' (no matter how many there may be). Let's try not to personify stuff where there is no need to.

 

Originally posted by Brighteyes

Make no comparisons on God and Mother Nature!

Considering the fact that (some) people/religions(?) tend to say God is everywhere and everything, God could as well be seen as a synonym for 'nature'. Put into the right perspective there is nothing wrong with that.

But I think i do not like the idea that "something was done" literally. In my opinion "something happened" is more the correct term to use.

 

Originally posted by edlib

Synthetic: Using natural ingredients to create something that could never actually occur on it's own without mankind's meddling.

At least we don't know if it occured "on it's own" somewhere.

 

Originally posted by VikingLarz

Well mankind is part of nature. Just a more advanced part.

More advanced than what? Quantum mechanics?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? There were/are religions worshipping many different deities. One for the fire, one for thunder, one for the harvest etc, etc. You can say one for every for-our-life-significant happening in "nature". Of course that's not very 'useful' for bigger religious movement, so the different gods simply were 'combined', the god of thunder and fire became one and/or whatever. Until one day there was only one god left, responsible for everything. So from a certain point of view, God is nature, even the whole universe and more, so to say. It just depends on how things are interpreted. To refer the Zoomster: "I don't believe the universe is run by a little man sitting in a little room pushing buttons", err.. or like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ancient Greeks, Hindu's Ancient Egyptians and many other regions, they all had multiple gods for many different aspects of life. But it is a lot of peoples opinion that God is Omnipresent, meaning he is everywhere, and in order for him to be everywhere, he would have to be everything, therefore, based on that theory, he is eveywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Brighteyes

Ah but Ray, is "Mother Nature" not just a collective term for nature itself?

 

oh no, i've met Mother Nature. she was very er, nimble... ah venice. very temperamental though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're confusing her with Mother Maggie.

 

Meanwhile, in England:

Englishman: I say, Jeremy, isn't that Reginald B. Stifworth, the young upstart chap who's been touting the merits of a united European commonwealth?

Jeremy: Why yes, I daresay it is.

Englishman: Oh, let's get him.

They drive up.

Englishman: Oh Reginald... I disagree.

Drives off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Alien426

Meanwhile, in England:

Englishman: I say, Jeremy, isn't that Reginald B. Stifworth, the young upstart chap who's been touting the merits of a united European commonwealth?

Jeremy: Why yes, I daresay it is.

Englishman: Oh, let's get him.

They drive up.

Englishman: Oh Reginald... I disagree.

Drives off.

 

Drive by's in England.

 

New topic of discusion "Why is England cooler than America?" (Yes, I am american, but I wish I lived in Britain)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...