official cb7tuner.com debate thread. topic #1

[Accord R33]

hmm, right now i really want to continue this because i think it would be a good debate, but honestly i say for the betterment of the entire board we stop this now before it gets ugly. This is by no means a concession but rather an agreement to disagree on this subject before it gets out of hand. i mean, i can go all night, but maybe its just not the place. sound good?

This is a debate thread..and as long as we are not call people stupid, or debating the same thing thats being debated in the religion thread, i dont see a problem.


I personally cant wrap my head around how a fish would even start to process oxygen without a fully functional respitory system, and thats not really the evolution i beleive in. I beleive that when something's environment changes, those who have a genetic mutation in favor of the change will survive and reproduce, where those who dont have the mutation will not survive. whether it is the color of somethings skin that blends in with its environment and helps protect against preditors, or any other genetic change that works in favor of survival.

Now this may sound a bit outlandish, but the only way i could see a fish developing lungs, would be for it to cross breed with something that actually has a functional respitory system. The offspring would then possibly have some characteristics of a fish, with the added respitory system of whatever it mated with, and that just so happen to actually help this offspring survive in say both water and on land.

after writing all this out, i guess i dont believe in the standard theory of evolution. but i certainly believe in survival of the fittest

[maroonaccord2.2]

Everything evolved from single celled organisms. The chicken evolved from a primitive form of bird, which evolved from an even more primitive form, which most likely evolved from something aquatic. Egg laying, since it is common among birds and fish, probably began with the aquatic ancestor.

So my answer to the question is: Fish.

Noah placed 2 of each animal on the ark, so the CHICKEN came first. God created those animals imho. LOL! That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it......

[gloryaccordy]

Yep...evolution is Darwinism, not fish instantly growing lungs when they get on land. For example with insects, once they might have all been different colors...but the ones that happened to be the color of leaves or whatever survived. Shit like that. A mutation happens, but not for the survival...it's just through whatever, and if that happens to keep a specific type of animal alive then that's evolution.

No offense to anybody but I think most people who HATE evolution either fear it or just don't understand it. But it's not even a threatening theory. Things mutate. Some for the better, some for the worse. The better mutations survive. There you have "evolution". While debate is great, life is too short to blow smoke out of your ears over a theory. That's all it is. From what I understand it makes perfect sense. I think people just like to be mad to be mad.

[Accord R33]

God placed 2 of each animal on the ark, so the CHICKEN came first. LOL! That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it......

how would TWO of every single species on the planet fit on one boat? i dont care how big it is...

[bresk8r87]

I see your point, but what was there to cross breed with if the fish predated all other forms of land dwelling life? If im not mistaken, the mudskipper is a good example of this...it can survive on land by breathing through its skin...and it's still a fish. The lung dilemma still seems to be very shrouded, i cant even really come up with a good guess as to how a creature made it from an aquatic existence to land other than adaptation....Lungs, after all, were probably a mutation just like any other organ development... it seems easy to explain the other way around, a la manatees and whales being directly linked to elephants and land mammals... but the lung development thing really has the gears turning right now.

[bresk8r87]

one big em-effin boat.

[gloryaccordy]

how would TWO of every single species on the planet fit on one boat? i dont care how big it is...

[Accord R33]

I see your point, but what was there to cross breed with if the fish predated all other forms of land dwelling life? If im not mistaken, the mudskipper is a good example of this...it can survive on land by breathing through its skin...and it's still a fish. The lung dilemma still seems to be very shrouded, i cant even really come up with a good guess as to how a creature made it from an aquatic existence to land other than adaptation....Lungs, after all, were probably a mutation just like any other organ development... it seems easy to explain the other way around, a la manatees and whales being directly linked to elephants and land mammals... but the lung development thing really has the gears turning right now.

I still dont see how a fish with half a respitory system is going to survive...it just doesnt make sense.

Im not going to pretend i know how it exactly works, but i certainly cant see one single fish randomly having a set of lungs, and i cant see a fish being able to survive with only a small portion of what could "someday" become a lung.

like i said, i beleive things adapt to their environment, and thats what i think of when i think of evolution

[bresk8r87]

and by proccess of deduction, if God wanted to kill off everything on earth, why even bother having Noah build the Ark if all he was going to do was flood the earth? If all organisms eventually evolved from fish....and to the best of my knowledge fish live in water... than whats the point of FLOODING the earth? it would just start evolution all over! sure it would set us back a couple million years but, eh, God has all the time in the world! Who'da thunk....Crazy creationalists...

[deevergote]

Mutation, adaptation... it's evolution.

Those unused parts of our bodies were used by earlier forms.


Hell, look at human body types... skin color, for one. Notice that dark skinned people generally live closer to the equator, whereas light skinned people live far from it. If people in the hotter areas of the world had light skin, they would fry in the sun. People in the cooler areas don't need darker skin for protection (honestly, I have no explanation for pale skin, aside from a lack of necessity.) Such a concept fits well with the Middle Eastern origin theory... people with a light brown skin tone migrated north and south... and as they evolved, their skin changed according to the climate.

Now, with interracial marriages becoming more accepted, scientific advances such as sunscreen, and civilized housing, I forsee skin color evening out (as long as we don't kill ourselves off first!)


As for fish turning into mammals... that does seem a bit far fetched. However, true evolution began with the very first signs of life, which were microscopic organisms (how they were created, I can't say... which leaves room for God). When you start with a single cell, many paths develop. I'm sure no fish has ever started walking, but the aquatic creatures and land based creatures probably developed simultaneously. Birds evolved from birds. Mammals from mammals. Fish from fish... insects, bacteria, etc...

[sonikaccord]

what about frogs, they're born with gills which eventually turn into lungs. My question is why?

[deevergote]

Also, as a trained research scientist, I have learned that perception is the greatest contaminant of any argument. Not just your perception of the evidence, but your perception of the subject matter. Your perception of the problem. Your perception of life.


If you see evolution as an absurdity where one day a fish was born with legs and fur, then of course it makes no sense. If you see Creationism as a poor explanation, you see a theory basically resulting in incest and inbreeding... which COULD explain a whole lot of our flaws based on what science knows about such things... NOBODY can look at ALL the facts. NOBODY can always be on the same page.


If you want to argue evolution, define evolution. Break it down so you're as close to using the same explanation in your arguments. Otherwise, you're using your own interpretation and it's bias to play into your own belief.

[bresk8r87]

in response to Eric's post.... i guess it works similar to the same way any other organ we posses came to be? We didnt start with appendix's, but we eventually evolved (or mutated, if thats what floats your boat) to possess them in order to filter out and store toxins in the grasses that constituted diets for early primates.... i think your right with the adaptation theory, but i think its more an issue of necessity... lungs and gills arent really all that different when looking at them side by side....

and wow, guess this is what happens when i decide to stay in on a tuesday night...i need a life

[deevergote]

what about frogs, they're born with gills which eventually turn into lungs. My question is why?

Human beings spend the first 9 months of their life in fluid. We do not breathe. Our blood is oxygenated through our mother's respiratory system.

The function of gills is to draw oxygen from water, instead of air. All of the larger complex organisms in this world need oxygen to survive (not sure if it applies to ALL organisms, so I left it at that.) The idea of lungs and gills being closely related somewhere down the evolutionary chain isn't totally absurd.

[Shuebakka]

Nearly everything that is alive or is influence by something that is evolves. I am not just talking about nature here and humans and whatnot. Look around you. Look at that coke can on your desk, look a little different than in the 70's? All things technological, cars, computers, phones, everything. It all evolves even if it is humans that made it in the first place. Not only is it in our nature to make things better and better, but it is in nature's nature. (?) Natures way is natural selection and variations among the same species. Not to mention cars, a prime example of self-inflicted evolution. In a way cars evolving is part of nature, afterall humans are part of nature. People often think of humans as above everything else on this planet because we are so different and so much smarter. But we are not that different. "Man shares about half his genes with the fruit fly, 85 per cent with dogs, 99 per cent with chimpanzees. Large chunks of human DNA had even been transferred from bacteria." But the fact is, we came from this planet like everything else. I think that is why so many people think evolution is bull. It scares them. Not me, I like it, it facinates me to think that we all came from single celled oraganisms. Which in essence came from the elements in the stars. Oooo....! trippy.