official cb7tuner.com debate thread. topic #1

[Accord R33]

The idea of lungs and gills being closely related somewhere down the evolutionary chain isn't totally absurd.

A valid point...one pulls oxygen from air, the other from water. its not all that different

[bresk8r87]

If im not mistaken, fish are also credited as the first vertebrates? Another striking similarity to all advanced forms of life...

[deevergote]

That also...

Honestly, I see no other explanation for the development of life on this planet. And no, I don't believe we are the end-all either. Hell, WE have evolved. We are larger on average than our ancestors in terms of height. We live longer. Our diets have changed. Our needs have changed. A human being is capable of living with little sunlight and no meat. Imagine if we had a multitude of generations getting limited sunlight exposure and eating only vegetable based foods... I bet in time, our pointy teeth and darker skin pigments would disappear.

[bresk8r87]

I.E. HG Wells' Classic, 'The Time Machine'...near perfect example of what youre talking about...~100 years old too

[deevergote]

Those old timers had some good ideas...

Hell, Big Brother is upon us now, and we don't even know it (this isn't the thread for that discussion though...)

[maroonaccord2.2]

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.

Specialty ultra deep-sea divers are trained to breathe oxygen-rich liquid at extreme depths, so in a way...... we can still breathe in water!!

[bresk8r87]

Shhh.... BB is watchin...dont want the Thought Police showin up and shutting down CB7tuner....

[deevergote]

Specialty ultra deep-sea divers are trained to breathe oxygen-rich liquid at extreme depths, so in a way...... we can still breathe in water!!

Very true. That strengthens my argument that lungs and gills aren't that far removed from each other!

[deevergote]

Shhh.... BB is watchin...dont want the Thought Police showin up and shutting down CB7tuner....

Here, I AM Big Brother!

[Davids92Accord]

well by the looks of it seems like everything that is in front of us has some type of living organism and everyone has his or her own opinion on what everything was created from or who created it etc. there are alot of different possibilities how everything began some people believe in religion some people believe in evolution its all basically comes down on what you want to believe or have an open mind to here other peoples opinion
________
Homemade Marijuana Vaporizers

[bracersi]

I heard in some religions that life began with adam and eve. Who did Adam and Eve's kids fuck to reproduce?

[SoySauceCb7]

*side note* if any of you honestly believe in evolution you are a moron. evolution as a theory is inherently flawed and even the scientists who debate on the pro-evolution side admit to there being a chance of the evolution theory being wrong and whimsical at best. Research evolution and if you still believe in it then cool, but you'd be an idiot.

+1 the answer is god

['93accordse]

I heard in some religions that life began with adam and eve. Who did Adam and Eve's kids fuck to reproduce?

kind of a terrible way to put it, but i believe that Creationists believe it was incest. According to the bible Adam lived to be over 800 yrs old. The whole time he bore sons and daughters. This is one part of Crationism that also disproves Evolution. Apparently, the BIble says that many people back then lived to be well over 600-700 yrs old, aging much slower than the average human today. Our aging today is blamed on the current state of our world, pollution etc... disproving that we are actually getting better as human beings, although i can;t fault Deevergotes quote about humans needing less light, meat etc....

as for the Noah's Ark debate he could have done it with babies, eggs, etc...

as for the leftover useless parts showing evolution:
Vestigial features are those parts of an organism, which are thought to be useless or no longer needed. The human tailbone is commonly to be such a feature. Vestigial features are taught to be leftover from an organism’s ancestors as it has evolved to a new way of life. The idea of vestigial features has been used as evidence for evolution since 1859 when Darwin first proposed that such features were evidence of descent of one organism from a completely different one. The logical consequence of this alleged transformation is that the "new" creatures will be left with some features, which are no longer needed in its new environmental niche.

Belief in evolution demands that we believe that each type of animal on earth is a result of descent from some previous life form. If this were the case, almost every creature should have many leftover features, which are no longer needed. Yet the more we learn about biology, the more we discover that every part of an organism serves some useful function. For example, the appendix is often said to be a useless leftover part of the human body. We know that the appendix serves as a type of lymphatic tissue in the first few months of life to fight disease. It is no more a useless feature than one of your lungs is useless just because you can survive with only one lung.

The acceptance of the idea that some parts of the human body are useless leftovers has had very tragic consequences. Based on the misguided concept that the human colon was a vestige of the past, Sir William Land and dozens of other surgeons stripped the colons from thousands of patients in order to "cure" a variety of symptoms. Many died. As late as the 1960's many people had their tonsils removed. This practice was again fueled by the mistaken belief that the tonsils were a useless leftover feature from our past. It is now known that they serve as an important disease fighting function and should not be removed.

There are true vestigial features as the blind eyes of cave salamanders. Blind salamanders have non-functional eyes because they live their entire lives in total darkness. At sometime in the past, normal salamanders found a niche in dark caves and apparently only those who mutated to blindness had a need to stay in the total darkness where they could compete for existence without blindness being a disadvantage. However, these salamanders are still salamanders, a mutation to blindness is hardly an upward improvement in complexity, and no new information has been added to the DNA of the salamander.

As to the question of the human tailbone, anatomists tell us that the tailbone serves a very important function in the human physiology. The coccyx(tailbone) is the point of insertion of several muscles and ligaments including the one which allows man to walk completely upright. Without a tailbone, people could not walk in a completely upright manner, dance a ballet, perform gymnastics, or stroll down the street with their arm around their spouse. Hardly a useless, leftover, vestigial feature! The human body is designed for maximum versatility-it is far more versatile than the body of any other creature. What other animal can perform the range of movement required for activities as diverse as ice-skating, pearl diving, skiing, and gymnastics. This range of movement would be impossible without the tailbone.

[deevergote]

kind of a terrible way to put it, but i believe that Creationists believe it was incest. According to the bible Adam lived to be over 800 yrs old. The whole time he bore sons and daughters. This is one part of Crationism that also disproves Evolution. Apparently, the BIble says that many people back then lived to be well over 600-700 yrs old, aging much slower than the average human today. Our aging today is blamed on the current state of our world, pollution etc... disproving that we are actually getting better as human beings, although i can;t fault Deevergotes quote about humans needing less light, meat etc....

as for the Noah's Ark debate he could have done it with babies, eggs, etc...

as for the leftover useless parts showing evolution:
Vestigial features are those parts of an organism, which are thought to be useless or no longer needed. The human tailbone is commonly to be such a feature. Vestigial features are taught to be leftover from an organism’s ancestors as it has evolved to a new way of life. The idea of vestigial features has been used as evidence for evolution since 1859 when Darwin first proposed that such features were evidence of descent of one organism from a completely different one. The logical consequence of this alleged transformation is that the "new" creatures will be left with some features, which are no longer needed in its new environmental niche.

Belief in evolution demands that we believe that each type of animal on earth is a result of descent from some previous life form. If this were the case, almost every creature should have many leftover features, which are no longer needed. Yet the more we learn about biology, the more we discover that every part of an organism serves some useful function. For example, the appendix is often said to be a useless leftover part of the human body. We know that the appendix serves as a type of lymphatic tissue in the first few months of life to fight disease. It is no more a useless feature than one of your lungs is useless just because you can survive with only one lung.

The acceptance of the idea that some parts of the human body are useless leftovers has had very tragic consequences. Based on the misguided concept that the human colon was a vestige of the past, Sir William Land and dozens of other surgeons stripped the colons from thousands of patients in order to "cure" a variety of symptoms. Many died. As late as the 1960's many people had their tonsils removed. This practice was again fueled by the mistaken belief that the tonsils were a useless leftover feature from our past. It is now known that they serve as an important disease fighting function and should not be removed.

There are true vestigial features as the blind eyes of cave salamanders. Blind salamanders have non-functional eyes because they live their entire lives in total darkness. At sometime in the past, normal salamanders found a niche in dark caves and apparently only those who mutated to blindness had a need to stay in the total darkness where they could compete for existence without blindness being a disadvantage. However, these salamanders are still salamanders, a mutation to blindness is hardly an upward improvement in complexity, and no new information has been added to the DNA of the salamander.

As to the question of the human tailbone, anatomists tell us that the tailbone serves a very important function in the human physiology. The coccyx(tailbone) is the point of insertion of several muscles and ligaments including the one which allows man to walk completely upright. Without a tailbone, people could not walk in a completely upright manner, dance a ballet, perform gymnastics, or stroll down the street with their arm around their spouse. Hardly a useless, leftover, vestigial feature! The human body is designed for maximum versatility-it is far more versatile than the body of any other creature. What other animal can perform the range of movement required for activities as diverse as ice-skating, pearl diving, skiing, and gymnastics. This range of movement would be impossible without the tailbone.

All very good points. That's a good argument against "useless" features.


My only argument against the extended ages of people in the distant past is that there have been thousands of years for these tales to grow. Sure, Noah and Moses lived to be old men. In the 1700s, "old" was 45. People that are considered in the prime of their lives at about 35 years old today were considered elders. This is only going back within the past 500 years... where at least SOME concept of cleanliness and health (however misguided) was instituted. People didn't blame gods for diseases. They weren't nearly as advanced as we are now, but they weren't primative. In the days of the Old Testament, the quality of life was considerably less. The thought of a human being living to be 800 years old is hard to believe.
Living conditions aside, the methods for recording at the time were primative as well. People were superstitious. People passed on stories by word of mouth, and as everyone knows, stories change. We can't start a story whispered down a line of 10 people without some alteration taking place... imagine that process over thousands of years, translated into countless languages, retold most likely by some of the most creative zealots.


And yes. If Creationism IS the way things happened, incest is certainly the only method of reproduction. However, Adam and Eve were probably quite young at the time of their offense...
If Eve gave birth at age 12, and assuming Adam was also 12, they would both be 24 by the time the first child was old enough to reproduce (just using 12 as the number... I know it can be earlier or later). 12 years is enough time to produce 16 children, assuming Eve was fertile and Adam was a machine. In the first dozen years, 16 children are technically possible with Eve alone (most likely less, and more than half certainly died before maturity, but that's beside the point). Of those 16 possible children, half are likely to be female. Adam alone, at age 36, has a possible 9 fertile women with which to reproduce. By 36, Eve could possibly have birthed 16 more children as well. As the boys mature, Adam is no longer the only seed. If Adam lived to the ripe old age of 48, do the math (that's about 140 children, by my calculations). How many children could he alone sire in his time? This illustrates the exponential growth potential of a Creationist situation (the fact that the sons can also reproduce is a moot point... a pregnant woman, Adam's seed or not, can only be pregnant by one man at a time).

[souldoubt]

i personal don't belive god is the answer. proven fact is fact. speculation like the bible, is hog wash. years of debate on where god/jesus is realy from what he looks like, male, female. the only thing thats provides some sort of insight to the truth of the begining of this has been re-written over and over again and manipulated to suit each sub religion. it's like the old high school game, where you line up 30 people and wisper a phase in 1 persons ear and tell them to pass it on.

you start w/ "the cow sleeps slowly on the bridge." and end up w/ "the snow eats the rain by the fridge".

now i don't knock anyone for a having a belief, god, evolution, creatioism and what not. i personaly believe the facts before writen word.

i admit the theoroy of evolution may have some flaws, but i refuse to be one of the sheople just because billions say "it's right than i must follow" don't hink so. i believe what i want, just like you believe what you want.

anyway. all i wanted to know is which came first, the chicken or the egg?