Post by: QuantumJG on September 14, 2009, 09:24:22 pm
I do not get it!
In year 10 I learned about the theory of evolution and straight away believed in it! As someone who depends on science to show fact from fiction I said yes Darwin is correct.
In the US only 39% of the population believes in evolution, yet, they believe in scientology and this is where I get furious!!!
I went a bit far when speaking to my uncle, auntie and cousins (who are catholics) by saying that man evolved from ape like creatures and they asked me whether I was a scientoligist? science and scientology are that different, there is no similarity AT ALL.
What I really don't get is everyone has a right to believe in their own religion and yet people look down on people who believe in evolution, why?
Post by: minilunchbox on September 14, 2009, 09:41:55 pm
jk.
Anyway I read the same article (but from a different source) and I'm relatively certain they only asked around 1000 people and if you find the site, they group age groups together and you'll see that college students and high school students have a higher percentage of people who 'believe' in evolution.
Right, yeah. Here it is. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx
I never really understood how you can 'believe' in evolution. It's just a thing that you know. Like believing that the earth is round or that gravity exists. I mean. What.
But the people who go, 'LOL EVOLUTION MAKES NO SENSE. I'M NOT DESCENDED FROM A MONKEY BECAUSE THEY STILL EXIST LOLOLOL' make me want to stab things. Seriously.
ALSO, slightly off-topic, but really not. It's not that the US is banning the movie to be shown, it's just having a hard time finding distributors because of less-than-positive reviews it got at a film festival, but I'm pretty sure because of all this ~hype, they'll eventually find one.
Post by: /0 on September 14, 2009, 09:45:34 pm
I'm sorry that's a bit harsh... but evolution is a fact. It has been experimentally observed.
Post by: TrueLight on September 14, 2009, 09:45:56 pm
im not sure about man evolving from ape... im leaning towards that being not true... i dunno how did we come from apes they are very different to us, we are very unique in many ways..... but u may say genes etc..but eh...i dont think that concludes we came from it.... but anyway i dont know really... i do believe in god however, but saying that god just plopped us on the planet i dont really beleive that too...lol but evoltuion is a very good theory
in terms of like microevolution that definetly occurs because we see it before our eyes...like bacteria how they mutate very rapidly and change to different conditions...but yeah iunno however its very controversial
i was reading someone elses essay i guess on this, it was quite interesting
http://www.greatdreams.com/essay.htm
heres a few segments
However, in his 1859 classic, The Origin Of Species, he skirted both issues in an attempt to placate his era’s dominant power structure—organized religion. Though he used the word “origin” in the title, he was careful to discuss only how species developed from each other, not how life originated. And he simply avoided discussing humanity’s origins.
The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from organic material. In 1873 Dawson complained that “the men who evolve all things from physical forces do not yet know how these forces can produce the phenomenon of life even in its humblest forms.” He added that “in every case heretofore, the effort (to create animate life) has proved vain.” After 127 years of heavily subsidized effort by scientists all over the world to create even the most basic rudiments of life, they are still batting an embarrassing zero. In any other scientific endeavor, reason would dictate it is time to call in the dogs and water down the fire. But when it comes to Darwinian logic, as Dawson noted in 1873, “here also we are required to admit as a general principle what is contrary to experience.”
Dawson’s second fallacy was the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. “These are necessarily the converse of each other, the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. Only in reproduction or decay does the plant simulate the action of the animal, and the animal never in its simplest forms assumes the functions of the plant. This gap can, I believe, be filled up only by an appeal to our ignorance.” And thus it remains today. If life did evolve as Darwinists claim, it would have had to bridge the gap between plant and animal life at least once, and more likely innumerable times. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, science is again batting zero.
The third gap in the knowledge of 1873 was “that between any species of animal or plant and any other species. It is this gap, and this only, which Darwin undertook to fill up by his great work on the origin of species; but, notwithstanding the immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever, since it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species.” Here, too, despite a ceaseless din of scientific protests to the contrary, there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving entirely—not just partially—into another distinct and separate species.
A more widely known fraudulent attempt to support Darwin’s flagging theory was England’s famous Piltdown Man hoax of 1912, which was an ancient human skull found in conjunction with a modern orangutan’s lower jaw that had been doctored (its teeth filed down to look more human) and aged to match the look of the skull. This was much more important than Haeckel’s fraud because it provided the desperately sought “missing link” between humans and their proposed ape-like ancestors.
Despite the extreme volatility of these issues, and the immediate rancor received after aligning with the “wrong” side in someone else’s view, any objective analysis will conclude that both Darwinists and Creationists are wrong to a significant degree. Indeed, how could it be otherwise when each can shoot such gaping holes in the other? If either side was as correct as, say, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which—apart from occasional dissonance with quantum mechanics—has faced no serious challenge since Einstein revealed it to an awestruck world in 1915, there would be no issues to debate: one side would be declared right, the other would be wrong, and that would be that.
The basic Darwinist position regarding how life began is called “spontaneous animation,” which J.W. Dawson complained about back in 1873. It is the idea that life somehow springs into existence suddenly, all by itself, when proper mixtures of organic and inorganic compounds are placed into proximity and allowed to percolate their way across the immensely deep chasm between non-life and life. Based on everything known about the technical aspects of that process—from 1873 until now—it is quite safe to say spontaneous animation doesn’t have the proverbial snowball’s chance of enduring.
Ignore the howls of protest echoing from far off to our right. Here on the middle ground reality rules, and reality says there is simply no way even the simplest life form—say, a sub-virus-sized microbe utilizing only a handful of RNA/DNA components—could have pulled itself together from any conceivable brew of chemical compounds and started functioning as a living entity. To cite just one reason, no laboratory has ever found a way to coax lipids into forming themselves into a functional cell membrane, which is essential for encasing any living microbe. Then there is permeability, which would also have to be a part of the mix so nutrients could be taken into the cell and wastes could be expelled.
Fred Hoyle, a brilliant English astronomer and mathematician, once offered what has become the most cogent analogy for this process. He said it would be comparable to “a tornado striking a junkyard and assembling a jetliner from the materials therein.” This is because the complexity evident at even the tiniest level of life is mind boggling beyond belief. In short, it could not and did not happen, and anyone insisting otherwise is simply wrong, misguided, or terrified of dealing with what its loss means to their world view.
So, if spontaneous animation is simply not possible, how does life come into existence? How can it be? Here we must call on an old friend, Sherlock Holmes, who was fond of saying that in any quest for truth one should first eliminate whatever is flatly impossible. Whatever remains, however unlikely, will be the truth. With spontaneous animation eliminated, that leaves only one other viable alternative: intervention at some level by some entity or entities. (Ignore the rousing cheers erupting far to our left.)
As noted above, Creationists insist that God (a singular male now, reduced from the genderless plurals of original Biblical text) created man in His own image, after His own likeness. Well, if that’s true, He must have been having a heck of a bad day, because we humans are a poorly designed species. True, we do have highly capable brains, but for some reason we are only allowed to use a relatively small portion of them. (Now we will hear frantic howls of protest from the scientists off to our right, but ignore them. If 100 idiot savants can access 100 different portions of their brains to perform their astounding intellectual feats, then those same portions must be in our brains, too, but our normalcy keeps us from being able to access them. Period.)
Morally we are a terrible mishmash of capacities, capable of evil incarnate at one moment and love incarnate the next, while covering every range of emotion in between. Physically we carry more than 4,000 genetic disorders, with each of us averaging about 50 (some carry many more, some many less). New ones are found on a regular basis. No other species has more than a handful of serious ones, and none which kill 100% of carriers before they can reach maturity and reproduce. We have dozens of those. So how did they get into us? Better yet, how do they stay in us? If they are 100% fatal before reproduction is possible, how could they possibly spread through our entire gene pool?
If we assume God was at His best the day He decided to create us, functioning in His usual infallible mode, that gives Him no legitimate excuse for designing us so poorly. Surely He could have given us no more physical disorders than, say, our nearest genetic relatives, gorillas and chimps. A little albinism never hurt any species, not those two or ours or dozens of others that carry it, so why couldn’t He just leave it at that? What could have been the point of making us much less genetically robust than all the other species we are supposed to be masters of?
There is no point to it, which is my point. It simply didn’t happen that way.
Notice that in any series of photos showing the skulls of the Homo prehumans, little changes over time except the size of their brains, which increase by leaps of roughly 200 cubic centimeters between species. Every bone in those skulls is much denser and heavier than in humans; they all had missing foreheads; huge brow ridges; large, round eye sockets holding nocturnal (night) vision eyes; wide cheekbones; broad nasal passages beneath noses that had to splay flat across their faces (no uplift of bone to support an off-the-face nose); mouths that extend outward in the prognathous fashion; and no chins.
Each of those features is classic higher primate, and they predominate in the fossil record until only 120,000 years ago, when genuinely human-looking creatures—the Cro-Magnons—appear literally “overnight” (in geological terms), with absolutely everything about them starkly different from their predecessors. In fact, the list of those differences is so lengthy, it is safe to say humans are not even primates! (More howls of outrage from off to our right, but please keep to the middle ground and consider the evidence.)
According to our mitochondrial DNA, humans have existed as a distinct species for only about 200,000 years, give or take several thousand. This creates quite a problem for Darwinists because they contend we are part of the sequence extending back through the Australopithecines at four million years ago. Furthermore, we should follow directly after the Neanderthals, which followed Homo Erectus. But now the Neanderthals, which existed for about 300,000 years and overlapped Cro-Magnons by about 100,000 of those, have provided mitochondrial samples which indicate they are not related closely enough to humans to be direct ancestors. This compounds yet another serious transition problem because human brains are on average 100 cubic centimeters smaller than Neanderthal brains! How might that have happened if we are on a direct ancestral line with them?
Anthropologists are now left with only Homo Erectus as a possible direct ancestor for humans, and Erectus supposedly went extinct 300,000 years ago—100,000 before we appeared. Obviously, something had to give here, and—as in war—truth has been the first casualty. Recently anthropologists started reevaluating Homo Erectus fossils from Indonesia and guess what? They are now finding possible dates as early as 30,000 years ago, well beneath the 120,000 years ago Cro-Magnons first appeared in the fossil record. Such a surprise! However, scientists still have to account for our “sudden” appearance and our wide array of new traits never before seen among primates.
Understand this: humans are not primates! Yes, we do fit the technical definition of having flexible hands and feet with five digits, but beyond that there is no reasonable comparison to make. We don’t have primate bone density (theirs is far more robust than ours) or muscular strength (pound for pound they are 5 to 10 times stronger than we are); but we do have foreheads; minimal brow ridges; small, rectangular-shaped eye sockets holding poor night-vision eyes; narrow nasal passages with noses that protrude off our faces; mouths that are flat rather than prognathous; we have chins; and we are bipedal.
Apart from those skeletal differences, we don’t have primate brains (that is an understatement!), throats (we can’t eat or drink and breathe at the same time; they can); voices (they can make loud calls, but we can modulate them into the tiny pieces of sound that make up words); body covering (they all have pelts of hair from head to toe, thick on the back and lighter on the front; we have no pelt and our thickness pattern is reversed); we cool ourselves by sweating profusely (they tend to pant, though some sweat lightly); we shed tears of emotion (no other primate does); we do not regulate our salt intake (all other primates do); we have a layer of fat of varying thickness attached to the underside of our skin, which primates do not have; that fat layer prevents wounds to our skin from healing as easily as wounds to primate skin; human females have no estrus cycle, as do all primates; but the number one difference between humans and primates is that humans have only 46 chromosomes while all higher primates have 48!
This last fact is the clincher. You can’t lose two entire chromosomes (think how much DNA that is!) from your supposedly “parent” species and somehow end up better. And not just better, a light year better! It defies logic to the point where any reasonable person should be willing to concede that something “special” happened in the case of humans, something well beyond the ordinary processes of life on Earth. And it did. The “missing” chromosomes, it turns out, are not actually missing. The second and third chromosomes in higher primates have somehow been spliced together (there is no other term for it) by an utterly inexplicable—some might call it “miraculous”— technique.
Post by: m@tty on September 14, 2009, 10:06:18 pm
But being a Christian I'm gonna say no we didn't evolve from apes, for on the sixth day god created man.
I have personal reasons for my faith and I have witnessed the work of God,
of course you are entitled to your personal beliefs.
Post by: mypurpleundercracka on September 14, 2009, 10:14:36 pm
Post by: TrueTears on September 14, 2009, 10:17:47 pm
Post by: /0 on September 14, 2009, 10:26:50 pm
I agree with TrueLight. Evolution is a good theory, it has taken what we see ('microevolution' if this is what its called) and tried to apply it to the biggest question there is, our origins. I don't understand how some can see more logic in this, billions of years of evolution, than in God. Both require faith, as both have very little evidence.
But being a Christian I'm gonna say no we didn't evolve from apes, for on the sixth day god created man.
I have personal reasons for my faith and I have witnessed the work of God,
of course you are entitled to your personal beliefs.
I don't see why other scientific theories like quantum mechanics aren't subjected to the same criticisms that people seem to have for evolution. The theory of evolution has evidence, lots of it. Like any other scientific theory it is put through the rigour of the scientific method - it must survive the scrutiny of thousands of other scientists in peer-reviewed scientific journals in order to survive. The 'theory' of evolution is not a 'guess', it is a tested hypothesis, and a theory in the same sense as Newton's gravity or Einstein's special relativity are theories.
Post by: m@tty on September 14, 2009, 10:30:01 pm
How is it tested at all?
I
Post by: m@tty on September 14, 2009, 10:35:06 pm
As I said above belief requires faith. No test.
And I actually am interested in answers about what I asked. I added that so you wouldn't think I was fobbing you off, apparently it didn't work.
Post by: m@tty on September 14, 2009, 10:37:42 pm
Surely you would not believe me, and also surely it isn't relevant to you.
Post by: /0 on September 14, 2009, 10:42:10 pm
How is it as tested as gravity?
How is it tested at all?
I want to hear your answers.
Newton's theory of gravity is an outdated theory, but at its time, no evidence could be found which contradicted it. Everything seemed to obey his laws - apples fell, and planets orbited. In 1915 he was usurped by Einstein, who improved on his theory. Evidence (gravitational lensing - bending of light, slowing of time in space-shuttle orbits) was found to support Einstein's theory, and now it is the accepted theory.
I'm not saying 'evolution' is the end-all-be-all. It is simply the best theory we have at our present time. If new evidence arrives which contradicts the theory, then we will have to amend the theory, or find a better theory. In any case, I think it provides far more insight into the origin of species than to say an invisible being in the sky created everything.
Post by: Glockmeister on September 14, 2009, 10:44:17 pm
Serious, suppose that there is a conspiracy and all the biologists have been misguided the whole time. A crap load of work in biology, medicine, psychology, neuroscience etc. relies on the fact that evolutionary theory is correct.
Also, we can observe evolution at work. Only a few weeks ago, I gave antibiotic resistance to E. Coli in a prac that I did for BMS1062 (that's Molecular Biology for you). That is an example of evolution. A more potent example is the virus for AIDS, HIV. It didn't just come from la la land. It evolved from SIV, which is a monkey equivalent.
Post by: m@tty on September 14, 2009, 10:46:18 pm
Ok, but is there any evidence/testing of evolution? You didn't show any.
And I did say it was a good theory.
@Glockmeister
I didn't doubt the evolution that we can witness i.e. all your examples. Only the extension of these to our origins.
Post by: Over9000 on September 14, 2009, 10:48:41 pm
CLEARLY IT OBEYS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. (unless it carries an everstone)
Post by: minilunchbox on September 14, 2009, 10:49:29 pm
But being a Christian I'm gonna say no we didn't evolve from apes, for on the sixth day god created man.
I agree (with the first part) because we didn't evolve from apes. We share similarities because we diverged from a common ancestor. Evolution isn't just a one step process that happens overnight. It's many small changes happening over a ridiculously long period of time. And fossils are used as evidence for evolution.
Post by: m@tty on September 14, 2009, 10:50:30 pm
Post by: QuantumJG on September 14, 2009, 10:55:08 pm
Dude how do you people think pikachu transforms to raichu?
CLEARLY IT OBEYS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. (unless it carries an everstone)
lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Glockmeister on September 14, 2009, 10:56:22 pm
@/0
Ok, but is there any evidence/testing of evolution? You didn't show any.
And I did say it was a good theory.
@Glockmeister
I didn't doubt the evolution that we can witness i.e. all your examples. Only the extension of these to our origins.
Why? Is there a rational reason to belief that these origin of viruses are inherently different our own origins?
Also, don't confuse evolution with abiogenesis.
Post by: /0 on September 14, 2009, 11:04:11 pm
@/0
Ok, but is there any evidence/testing of evolution? You didn't show any.
And I did say it was a good theory.
I'm not well-versed in biology so if I gave evidence I might get the details wrong, but there are lots of videos on youtube by AaronRa, cdk007, thunderf00t etc. which provide a lot of evidence for evolution e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ Evidence for Evolution
Lots of transitional fossils have been found which describe the evolution of certain species
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/completeness.html
But here's an example:
All great apes have 24 pairs chromosomes, but humans only have 23. However, according to evolution, humans are apes. What they found was that the human chromosome 2 was actually fused together from two separate chromosomes.
By the way if you think evolution is a good theory then you recognise that it is a theory, so by your own definition you accept evolution.
Post by: kamil9876 on September 14, 2009, 11:06:03 pm
Post by: kamil9876 on September 14, 2009, 11:10:11 pm
http://drownyourself.com/?p=730
Post by: kurrymuncher on September 14, 2009, 11:10:50 pm
Evolution ftw, I remember in year 8 religion class when the teacher tried to claim that God caused evolution.....................I raged!
Post by: TrueTears on September 14, 2009, 11:11:51 pm
To be honest, I believe the kazaks created the universe, but anyway.....LOL KAZAK HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Evolution ftw, I remember in year 8 religion class when the teacher tried to claim that God caused evolution.....................I raged!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
SARAM FROM KAZAK!
Post by: m@tty on September 14, 2009, 11:15:19 pm
Of course I accept it as a theory, a good one for those who disagree with religion.
I believe science and religion work very well together when theories are refined to reality.
How does us being the centre have anything to do with evolution debates?
Post by: TrueLight on September 14, 2009, 11:18:13 pm
@/0
Ok, but is there any evidence/testing of evolution? You didn't show any.
And I did say it was a good theory.
I'm not well-versed in biology so if I gave evidence I might get the details wrong, but there are lots of videos on youtube by AaronRa, cdk007, thunderf00t etc. which provide a lot of evidence for evolution e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ Evidence for Evolution
Lots of transitional fossils have been found which describe the evolution of certain species
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/completeness.html
But here's an example:
All great apes have 24 chromosomes, but humans only have 23. However, according to evolution, humans are apes. What they found was that the human chromosome 2 was actually fused together from two separate chromosomes.
By the way if you think evolution is a good theory then you recognise that it is a theory, so by your own definition you accept evolution.
it still doesnt PROVE that we came from apes
im seeming to agree with what m@tty is saying lol
Post by: kurrymuncher on September 14, 2009, 11:19:38 pm
How can you refute a someones theory? Just because you do not believe anothers theory does not mean you cannot see it as good from their perspective.
Of course I accept it as a theory, a good one for those who disagree with religion.
I believe science and religion work very well together when theories are refined to reality.
How does us being the centre have anything to do with evolution debates?
Science and religion will never be able to work together. If they did, then why would we be having this discussion?
Take a look at creation science on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science#Scientific_criticism
Not only is it the biggest bullshit I've ever read in my life, its almost embarrasing.
Post by: m@tty on September 14, 2009, 11:21:35 pm
Post by: TrueLight on September 14, 2009, 11:25:04 pm
i do believe in god however, but saying that god just plopped us on the planet i dont really beleive that too...lol but evoltuion is a very good theory
hey kurrymuncher im not doing the religion vs evolution thing ... as in im not all crazy about literal bible translations
Post by: kurrymuncher on September 14, 2009, 11:27:03 pm
i do believe in god however, but saying that god just plopped us on the planet i dont really beleive that too...lol but evoltuion is a very good theory
hey kurrymuncher im not doing the religion vs evolution thing ... as in im not all crazy about literal bible translations
No, i wasn't replying to your comment.
Post by: /0 on September 14, 2009, 11:27:33 pm
To be honest, I believe the kazaks created the universe, but anyway.....
Evolution ftw, I remember in year 8 religion class when the teacher tried to claim that God caused evolution.....................I raged!
LOL I remember in year 9 my C.E. teacher showed us a video on the Big Bang (which he probably thought supported his creationist views), but then somehow segued into evolution and tried to convince people that since mutations happen so slowly and since humans are so complex, evolution can't be right... kinda going on gut feelings instead of evidence... made me feel sick.
Post by: kamil9876 on September 14, 2009, 11:27:46 pm
Quote
How does us being the centre have anything to do with evolution debates?
I'll assume this is in response to my post. What I tried to point out is, spot the trends:
Heliocentrism:
"God loves us, therefore we cannot be at centre of universe."
Fastforward a few centuries:
"Okay, maybe we are not in the geometric centre and we were wrong, but still, god loves us and we are in the centre metaphorically."
Evolution:
"God loves us and created us from/in his image, therefore we cannot come from apes".
See if there is a fastforward scenario for this one. In other words, have we learnt from our mistake about heliocentrism? does this maybe suggest that our scientific understanding of the physical universe has no bearing on spiritual beliefs as the latter is analytically independant of the former?
Post by: TrueLight on September 14, 2009, 11:30:44 pm
Understand this: humans are not primates! Yes, we do fit the technical definition of having flexible hands and feet with five digits, but beyond that there is no reasonable comparison to make. We don’t have primate bone density (theirs is far more robust than ours) or muscular strength (pound for pound they are 5 to 10 times stronger than we are); but we do have foreheads; minimal brow ridges; small, rectangular-shaped eye sockets holding poor night-vision eyes; narrow nasal passages with noses that protrude off our faces; mouths that are flat rather than prognathous; we have chins; and we are bipedal.
Apart from those skeletal differences, we don’t have primate brains (that is an understatement!), throats (we can’t eat or drink and breathe at the same time; they can); voices (they can make loud calls, but we can modulate them into the tiny pieces of sound that make up words); body covering (they all have pelts of hair from head to toe, thick on the back and lighter on the front; we have no pelt and our thickness pattern is reversed); we cool ourselves by sweating profusely (they tend to pant, though some sweat lightly); we shed tears of emotion (no other primate does); we do not regulate our salt intake (all other primates do); we have a layer of fat of varying thickness attached to the underside of our skin, which primates do not have; that fat layer prevents wounds to our skin from healing as easily as wounds to primate skin; human females have no estrus cycle, as do all primates; but the number one difference between humans and primates is that humans have only 46 chromosomes while all higher primates have 48!
This last fact is the clincher. You can’t lose two entire chromosomes (think how much DNA that is!) from your supposedly “parent” species and somehow end up better. And not just better, a light year better! It defies logic to the point where any reasonable person should be willing to concede that something “special” happened in the case of humans, something well beyond the ordinary processes of life on Earth. And it did. The “missing” chromosomes, it turns out, are not actually missing. The second and third chromosomes in higher primates have somehow been spliced together (there is no other term for it) by an utterly inexplicable—some might call it “miraculous”— technique.
the author here makes good points
Post by: QuantumJG on September 14, 2009, 11:32:19 pm
To state that human beings did not evolve from any lower order species implies that we are the perfect species, since, we believe we have started off the way we are and will end the way we are. In essence it means that no other species would ever surpass us. We are genetically closely related to the chimpanzee and also other species of apes. Evolution states that we had deviated from the same ancestor as what the ape did several millions of years ago. From fossil records we can build a timeline showing how primal forms of man became us.
One question I would like to ask is why were we put on planet Earth? This is some random spot on the milky way which is in itself is one galaxy in a group of several trillion (more).
Post by: ninwa on September 14, 2009, 11:33:40 pm
To be honest, I believe the kazaks created the universe, but anyway.....I know a rather devout Christian (the type that goes to church every Sunday morning and donates half their pay cheque to church etc.) who actually believes that.
Evolution ftw, I remember in year 8 religion class when the teacher tried to claim that God caused evolution.....................I raged!
Post by: ninwa on September 14, 2009, 11:35:17 pm
To state that human beings did not evolve from any lower order species implies that we are the perfect species, since, we believe we have started off the way we are and will end the way we are. In essence it means that no other species would ever surpass us.That's a really good point. Those here who doubt the theory of evolution - is this what you think?
Post by: minilunchbox on September 14, 2009, 11:36:49 pm
Post by: TrueLight on September 14, 2009, 11:37:00 pm
and no we are not perfect
oh and also there has never been an observation of macro evolution so changing from one species to another
Post by: Glockmeister on September 14, 2009, 11:39:00 pm
How can you refute a someones theory? Just because you do not believe anothers theory does not mean you cannot see it as good from their perspective.
Of course I accept it as a theory, a good one for those who disagree with religion.
I believe science and religion work very well together when theories are refined to reality.
How does us being the centre have anything to do with evolution debates?
Ok, there's a difference between a layman's theory and the scientific definition of theory. What the layman calls a theory is probably more appropriately termed hypothesis in scientific discourse.
Post by: QuantumJG on September 14, 2009, 11:40:43 pm
@/0
Ok, but is there any evidence/testing of evolution? You didn't show any.
And I did say it was a good theory.
@Glockmeister
I didn't doubt the evolution that we can witness i.e. all your examples. Only the extension of these to our origins.
Why? Is there a rational reason to belief that these origin of viruses are inherently different our own origins?
Also, don't confuse evolution with abiogenesis.
abiogenesis now that is something I'll study these holidays! Sounds interesting
Post by: m@tty on September 14, 2009, 11:41:09 pm
Quantum JG, I am going to assume since you used the word 'put' you were referring to God (or deity).
I believe.
The Earth was created for us, we do not know why here.
We are not perfect.
All I meant by theory was hypothesis.
Post by: kamil9876 on September 14, 2009, 11:44:52 pm
Quote
Okay I didn't get 'made in Gods image' from the last post.
Pretty common phrase:
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22made+in+God%27s+image%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=%22made+in+God%27s+image%22&fp=8c424e7b4f85c6fc
Post by: m@tty on September 14, 2009, 11:46:10 pm
Post by: Glockmeister on September 14, 2009, 11:46:50 pm
Understand this: humans are not primates! Yes, we do fit the technical definition of having flexible hands and feet with five digits, but beyond that there is no reasonable comparison to make. We don’t have primate bone density (theirs is far more robust than ours) or muscular strength (pound for pound they are 5 to 10 times stronger than we are); but we do have foreheads; minimal brow ridges; small, rectangular-shaped eye sockets holding poor night-vision eyes; narrow nasal passages with noses that protrude off our faces; mouths that are flat rather than prognathous; we have chins; and we are bipedal.
Apart from those skeletal differences, we don’t have primate brains (that is an understatement!), throats (we can’t eat or drink and breathe at the same time; they can); voices (they can make loud calls, but we can modulate them into the tiny pieces of sound that make up words); body covering (they all have pelts of hair from head to toe, thick on the back and lighter on the front; we have no pelt and our thickness pattern is reversed); we cool ourselves by sweating profusely (they tend to pant, though some sweat lightly); we shed tears of emotion (no other primate does); we do not regulate our salt intake (all other primates do); we have a layer of fat of varying thickness attached to the underside of our skin, which primates do not have; that fat layer prevents wounds to our skin from healing as easily as wounds to primate skin; human females have no estrus cycle, as do all primates; but the number one difference between humans and primates is that humans have only 46 chromosomes while all higher primates have 48!
This last fact is the clincher. You can’t lose two entire chromosomes (think how much DNA that is!) from your supposedly “parent” species and somehow end up better. And not just better, a light year better! It defies logic to the point where any reasonable person should be willing to concede that something “special” happened in the case of humans, something well beyond the ordinary processes of life on Earth. And it did. The “missing” chromosomes, it turns out, are not actually missing. The second and third chromosomes in higher primates have somehow been spliced together (there is no other term for it) by an utterly inexplicable—some might call it “miraculous”— technique.
the author here makes good points
Remember a lot of DNA is non-coding i.e. junk DNA.
Post by: TrueLight on September 14, 2009, 11:48:27 pm
Girard, OH
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it! |#23 Apr 19, 2008
mutations
In the twentieth century many genetic researchers tried to "accelerate evolution" by increasing mutation rates.12 This can be accomplished with ionizing radiation, like x-rays, or chemical mutagens. Researchers gave plants and fruit flies very high doses of radiation or other mutagens in hopes that new life forms, or at least improved organs, would result. Decades of this type of research resulted in repeated failure. Every mutation observed was deleterious to the organisms' survival. In the fruit fly research13 various mutations occurred--like legs coming out of eyes--but not one improved mutation was observed. Why? Because radiation is harmful, as the signs in hospitals warn pregnant patients. The pre-born child is more sensitive to mutagens, and thus has a higher likelihood of being harmed. "
this is also a good point
Post by: Glockmeister on September 14, 2009, 11:49:02 pm
Okay I didn't get 'made in Gods image' from the last post.
Quantum JG, I am going to assume since you used the word 'put' you were referring to God (or deity).
I believe.
The Earth was created for us, we do not know why here.
We are not perfect.
All I meant by theory was hypothesis.
Hypothesises by definition can be and in fact are regularly are refuted.
Post by: Glockmeister on September 14, 2009, 11:49:50 pm
"Sam
Girard, OH
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it! |#23 Apr 19, 2008
mutations
In the twentieth century many genetic researchers tried to "accelerate evolution" by increasing mutation rates.12 This can be accomplished with ionizing radiation, like x-rays, or chemical mutagens. Researchers gave plants and fruit flies very high doses of radiation or other mutagens in hopes that new life forms, or at least improved organs, would result. Decades of this type of research resulted in repeated failure. Every mutation observed was deleterious to the organisms' survival. In the fruit fly research13 various mutations occurred--like legs coming out of eyes--but not one improved mutation was observed. Why? Because radiation is harmful, as the signs in hospitals warn pregnant patients. The pre-born child is more sensitive to mutagens, and thus has a higher likelihood of being harmed. "
this is also a good point
Yeah but I don't see how this relates to evolution.
Post by: m@tty on September 14, 2009, 11:50:42 pm
Post by: /0 on September 14, 2009, 11:51:57 pm
something obviously happened but i dont think evolution is the definitive answer and the fossil record is pretty incomplete
and no we are not perfect
In response to your quote from that article, physiological similarities often have little to do with genetic similarities. Instead of focusing on the physical/physiological similarities, we need to focus on the genetics behind it all. For example, the genetic disorder sickle cell anaemia, which causes blood to be restricted to organs and early death, is due to the mutation of a single nucleotide on chromosome 11, which has millions of nucleotides. Humans and chimpanzees share 97% of their DNA, but this does not mean that humans look or act 97% like chimpanzees.
To say god came in and designed chromosome number 2 himself is a massive cop-out. In history, whenever humans have failed to provide explanations for certain things, such as the sun, lightning, or the auroras, they have turned to gods to 'fill in the gaps'. This does not achieve anything except for giving people false ideas. Scientists may well have an explanation for this fusion, but regardless, it is not god's job to act as a placeholder.
Post by: /0 on September 14, 2009, 11:53:23 pm
All I meant by theory was hypothesis.
Then you'd better get your definitions right if you want to argue science. They are not the same thing.
Post by: TrueLight on September 14, 2009, 11:57:57 pm
"Sam
Girard, OH
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it! |#23 Apr 19, 2008
mutations
In the twentieth century many genetic researchers tried to "accelerate evolution" by increasing mutation rates.12 This can be accomplished with ionizing radiation, like x-rays, or chemical mutagens. Researchers gave plants and fruit flies very high doses of radiation or other mutagens in hopes that new life forms, or at least improved organs, would result. Decades of this type of research resulted in repeated failure. Every mutation observed was deleterious to the organisms' survival. In the fruit fly research13 various mutations occurred--like legs coming out of eyes--but not one improved mutation was observed. Why? Because radiation is harmful, as the signs in hospitals warn pregnant patients. The pre-born child is more sensitive to mutagens, and thus has a higher likelihood of being harmed. "
this is also a good point
Yeah but I don't see how this relates to evolution.
because they tried to increase mutations so that it may somehow change into something else but it didnt... so it does relate to evolution
Post by: dcc on September 14, 2009, 11:58:34 pm
We are nothing special.
We haven't been here very long (in fact, if you imagined a person holding their arms apart, and this length designating the age of the universe, human existence is a sliver of the person's fingernail.), and we won't be here very long either (species have an unsettling knack for becoming extinct quickly).
To assume that evolution holds for all species except homo sapiens is essentially arrogance. We are just another species. I accept the theory of evolution for all creatures, great and small. While the specifics may be heavily debated, I still accept that we evolved from something, which evolved from something else, which evolved from something else, ad infinitum.
Post by: TrueLight on September 15, 2009, 12:01:03 am
something obviously happened but i dont think evolution is the definitive answer and the fossil record is pretty incomplete
and no we are not perfect
In response to your quote from that article, physiological similarities often have little to do with genetic similarities. Instead of focusing on the physical/physiological similarities, we need to focus on the genetics behind it all. For example, the genetic disorder sickle cell anaemia, which causes blood to be restricted to organs and early death, is due to the mutation of a single nucleotide on chromosome 11, which has millions of nucleotides. Humans and chimpanzees share 97% of their DNA, but this does not mean that humans look or act 97% like chimpanzees.
To say god came in and designed chromosome number 2 himself is a massive cop-out. In history, whenever humans have failed to provide explanations for certain things, such as the sun, lightning, or the auroras, they have turned to gods to 'fill in the gaps'. This does not achieve anything except for giving people false ideas. Scientists may well have an explanation for this fusion, but regardless, it is not god's job to act as a placeholder.
i dont think genetics 100% explains how we appeared from apes
and i dont say god came in and created chromosome 2
and i didnt say that apes came from fish or wateva....
like i said evolution is a theory even though its a logical one, there is no 100% concrete proof of it, we will never see it over the times scales that strict evolutionists say is required
Post by: Glockmeister on September 15, 2009, 12:06:04 am
"Sam
Girard, OH
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it! |#23 Apr 19, 2008
mutations
In the twentieth century many genetic researchers tried to "accelerate evolution" by increasing mutation rates.12 This can be accomplished with ionizing radiation, like x-rays, or chemical mutagens. Researchers gave plants and fruit flies very high doses of radiation or other mutagens in hopes that new life forms, or at least improved organs, would result. Decades of this type of research resulted in repeated failure. Every mutation observed was deleterious to the organisms' survival. In the fruit fly research13 various mutations occurred--like legs coming out of eyes--but not one improved mutation was observed. Why? Because radiation is harmful, as the signs in hospitals warn pregnant patients. The pre-born child is more sensitive to mutagens, and thus has a higher likelihood of being harmed. "
this is also a good point
Yeah but I don't see how this relates to evolution.
because they tried to increase mutations so that it may somehow change into something else but it didnt... so it does relate to evolution
Most mutations are deadly to the functioning of cells and by proxy, life (for example, cancers are a form of mutation). Some mutations, however do bugger all to the species (often due to the fact the mutations occurs in these non-coding sections of DNA). Some give benefits to the species and thus there is a greater chance of these being passed on to their progeny (for example, antibiotic resistance). Over time these changes give rise to the diversity in life we see today.
Post by: QuantumJG on September 15, 2009, 12:12:33 am
We haven't been here very long (in fact, if you imagined a person holding their arms apart, and this length designating the age of the universe, human existence is a sliver of the person's fingernail.), and we won't be here very long either (species have an unsettling knack for becoming extinct quickly).
I reckon that explanation you used to explain our time of existence is a great rule of thumb (pun intended). We will never-ever witness evolution on a macroscale, the Earth has an expected life-time of about 10 billion years (The Sun will have expanded in a way that will stop life being supported on our planet), now nobody could understand what 10 billion years is, yet, there are so many stars that live for much longer than that, a star may orbit a black-hole for ages before being sucked in. Our time on Earth is too short. The longest a human can live at maximum as of a few days ago is 115 years. In space 10 billion years may be just a drop in the sea, for us its an amount of time you cannot understand.
Post by: TrueLight on September 15, 2009, 12:13:04 am
quoting ron paul
[evolution]"because it doesn't change the nature, the only thing that changes the nature of our life is our understanding of about what personal liberty is, and restraining the government and making sure we have a government that will never restrain you in making a discussion on these topics."
Post by: QuantumJG on September 15, 2009, 12:20:54 am
like i said evolution is a theory even though its a logical one, there is no 100% concrete proof of it,
This itself comes down to the heart of why there is so much debate over creationalism and evolution. As someone who believes in evolution I do have 100% faith in it and yet religious people see it to be so trivial they dismiss it having any merit and look down on those who do see merit in it.
Post by: Glockmeister on September 15, 2009, 12:24:06 am
like i said evolution is a theory even though its a logical one, there is no 100% concrete proof of it, we will never see it over the times scales that strict evolutionists say is requiredsomething obviously happened but i dont think evolution is the definitive answer and the fossil record is pretty incomplete
and no we are not perfect
In response to your quote from that article, physiological similarities often have little to do with genetic similarities. Instead of focusing on the physical/physiological similarities, we need to focus on the genetics behind it all. For example, the genetic disorder sickle cell anaemia, which causes blood to be restricted to organs and early death, is due to the mutation of a single nucleotide on chromosome 11, which has millions of nucleotides. Humans and chimpanzees share 97% of their DNA, but this does not mean that humans look or act 97% like chimpanzees.
To say god came in and designed chromosome number 2 himself is a massive cop-out. In history, whenever humans have failed to provide explanations for certain things, such as the sun, lightning, or the auroras, they have turned to gods to 'fill in the gaps'. This does not achieve anything except for giving people false ideas. Scientists may well have an explanation for this fusion, but regardless, it is not god's job to act as a placeholder.
There's no concrete proof for the existence of gravity. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like to fall off a top of the cliff.
Post by: TrueLight on September 15, 2009, 12:26:54 am
yeah i see ur point although im not looking down on those who see merit in it! even i learnt all that stuff! and i use some of the concepts in molecular bio! im just arguing about the ape > to human thingo... or fish to human or wateva to human......lol but as ive always said the theory is quite good and logical but u just can't lay it smack down on evolution. although u do which is great
Post by: excal on September 15, 2009, 02:05:39 am
@/0
Ok, but is there any evidence/testing of evolution? You didn't show any.
And I did say it was a good theory.
Ok, but did you show any evidence/testing of creationism? Oh and,
Over9000: How do you test God? I want to hear your answers.
As I said above belief requires faith. No test.
doesn't count. I could simply say that 'I believe in evolution and therefore it is right', which is what you're saying that it should be ('[it] requires faith, no test') for creationism.
For the record, I am a Catholic.
Post by: ninwa on September 15, 2009, 11:12:18 am
there is no 100% concrete proof of itWhere's the 100% concrete proof for creationism?
Post by: kurrymuncher on September 15, 2009, 11:14:31 am
there is no 100% concrete proof of itWhere's the 100% concrete proof for creationism?
There isnt, thats because its bullshit.
Post by: lukeperry91 on September 15, 2009, 12:51:31 pm
Post by: Mao on September 15, 2009, 10:15:53 pm
People who reject evolution on account of it lacking the necessary evidence, only to accept something with even less evidence, are proles.
People who accept evolution on account that 1) alternate theories lack evidence and 2) evolution has validated evidence, and hence reject alternate theories, are also proles.
Evolution is not proven, and it is silly to state that it is the correct theory. Many of us acknowledge this, many of us do not. A truly scientific mind is an open mind.
Hence it is silly to reject religion, but logical to believe in evolution over creationism because of current evidence.
Post by: TrueLight on September 15, 2009, 10:43:34 pm
there is no 100% concrete proof of itWhere's the 100% concrete proof for creationism?
i never said there was!
Post by: /0 on September 15, 2009, 11:00:22 pm
People who reject evolution on account of it lacking the necessary evidence, only to accept something with even less evidence, are proles.
People who accept evolution on account that 1) alternate theories lack evidence and 2) evolution has validated evidence, and hence reject alternate theories, are also proles.
Evolution is not proven, and it is silly to state that it is the correct theory. Many of us acknowledge this, many of us do not. A truly scientific mind is an open mind.
Hence it is silly to reject religion, but logical to believe in evolution over creationism because of current evidence.
You're right that there is no such thing as the correct theory; there is only the best theory.
However, I'm wondering if you would apply your same logic about 'accepting evolution' to the round-earth theory.
1) alternative theories (flat-earth etc.) lack evidence
2) round-earth theory has validated evidence
Now would you be a prole for accepting the world is round?
Also, I don't think you can even call religion a 'theory', or for that matter anything 'logical'. Unlike scientific theories, religious beliefs cannot be disproven, since they are not based on any logic to begin with. You can't disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster watches over us, or that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. In fact, in Kitzmiller vs Dover (2005), the main reason why Intelligent Design was rejected, was all the other radical beliefs such as witchcraft, numerology and astrology, would have to be included under its umbrella. I think a truly scientific mind would be open to reasonable ideas, but closed to ****.
(I don't think anybody has a truly scientific mind, or we would all be robots... personal, irrational beliefs are part of being human)
Post by: lukeperry91 on September 15, 2009, 11:09:40 pm
Post by: sxcalexc on September 16, 2009, 01:20:23 am
Post by: TrueLight on September 16, 2009, 01:45:08 am
Post by: clinton_09 on September 16, 2009, 10:01:01 am
Post by: ReVeL on September 16, 2009, 10:04:28 am
If evolution does exist, then why aren't apes and monkeys still transforming, how did they just stop?
Doesn't evolution take place over millions of years? Therefore they could still be transforming but it would seem to us they weren't, because of our relatively short history.
Post by: ninwa on September 16, 2009, 12:32:17 pm
Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.Because there couldn't possibly be any other reason one would become a Christian except to signify their disbelief in the theory of evolution ... ?
Post by: excal on September 16, 2009, 01:33:45 pm
@/0
Ok, but is there any evidence/testing of evolution? You didn't show any.
And I did say it was a good theory.
Ok, but did you show any evidence/testing of creationism? Oh and,Over9000: How do you test God? I want to hear your answers.
As I said above belief requires faith. No test.
doesn't count. I could simply say that 'I believe in evolution and therefore it is right', which is what you're saying that it should be ('[it] requires faith, no test') for creationism.
For the record, I am a Catholic.
m@tty - have you no response to this? Or are you just avoiding having to defend the indefensible (that the burden of proof for creationism ought to be lower than for evolution)?
I have noticed that you were on the site today at 12pm.
Post by: clinton_09 on September 16, 2009, 02:47:46 pm
Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.Because there couldn't possibly be any other reason one would become a Christian except to signify their disbelief in the theory of evolution ... ?
no i wasnt saying that, but the fact he created the theory, then through further scientific research discovering his "theory" was not correct but christianity was, is a significant point. I'm a christian myself and IMO i believe evolution is ridiculous, however if anyone wishes to believe in that theory then good for them.
Post by: m@tty on September 16, 2009, 02:50:42 pm
'Belief in God requires faith and a personal test, there is no communal test'
When I said 'no test' with relation to religion, I meant there is no universal evidence. One mans 'test' will not satisfy anothers skepticism, because it is supernatural it does not fit in with general world views and is thus rejected by everyone who has not had personal proof.
Belief comes from understanding the 'proof'(personal or communal) for yourself. Where this proof comes from is different for all things. With religion to understand for yourself you must in some way witness God, be this an act or communication or anything else, the main thing is the personal experience must provide rock solid evidence to you that God is real, if you do not have this you stand no chance of continuing belief.
There must be strong communal proof for any scientific hypothesis, as it must withstand the scrutiny of the scientific community. What happens with religion cannot happen with scientific hypotheses, you must find strong evidence for your ideas in order to be able to show others that your ideas are correct/the best explanation for unexplained occurrences or better than other explanations.
i.e. if a monkey spirit came and told you it is your ancestor it may make you believe but it will mean nothing except lower credibility amongst scientists and probably a straight jacket.
This applies to evolution you must either understand why you believe it by considering the evidence yourself or you just trust all the scientist(majority) who agree.
All belief requires some kind of personal 'test' whether this test can be shared is where logic(fit in with common sense and is natural comes in, all scientific proof must be logical(shareable), all religious proof is not logical(cannot be shared to have same effect)
It is this difference in nature of scientific and spiritual understanding that allows them to work together.
Post by: enwiabe on September 16, 2009, 02:56:15 pm
Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.Because there couldn't possibly be any other reason one would become a Christian except to signify their disbelief in the theory of evolution ... ?
no i wasnt saying that, but the fact he created the theory, then through further scientific research discovering his "theory" was not correct but christianity was, is a significant point. I'm a christian myself and IMO i believe evolution is ridiculous, however if anyone wishes to believe in that theory then good for them.
Actually, Darwin was born Christian and over the course of his life became agnostic (after his discovery of the theory of Evolution). There is a myth that on his deathbed he reverted to christianity, but this was actually largely promulgated by the Catholic church in a pathetic, desperate attempt to discredit Darwin.
It has since been debunked as a lie by both his children and many historians. Perhaps you were fed this lie by someone attempting to brainwash you into believing your religion, but if you do some googling, you will quickly find that Darwin died an agonstic, and an outspoken critic of the bible as an absolute history.
Post by: ninwa on September 16, 2009, 06:53:02 pm
Like this better??
'Belief in God requires faith and a personal test, there is no communal test'
When I said 'no test' with relation to religion, I meant there is no universal evidence. One mans 'test' will not satisfy anothers skepticism, because it is supernatural it does not fit in with general world views and is thus rejected by everyone who has not had personal proof.
Belief comes from understanding the 'proof'(personal or communal) for yourself. Where this proof comes from is different for all things. With religion to understand for yourself you must in some way witness God, be this an act or communication or anything else, the main thing is the personal experience must provide rock solid evidence to you that God is real, if you do not have this you stand no chance of continuing belief.
There must be strong communal proof for any scientific hypothesis, as it must withstand the scrutiny of the scientific community. What happens with religion cannot happen with scientific hypotheses, you must find strong evidence for your ideas in order to be able to show others that your ideas are correct/the best explanation for unexplained occurrences or better than other explanations.
i.e. if a monkey spirit came and told you it is your ancestor it may make you believe but it will mean nothing except lower credibility amongst scientists and probably a straight jacket.
This applies to evolution you must either understand why you believe it by considering the evidence yourself or you just trust all the scientist(majority) who agree.
All belief requires some kind of personal 'test' whether this test can be shared is where logic(fit in with common sense and is natural comes in, all scientific proof must be logical(shareable), all religious proof is not logical(cannot be shared to have same effect)
It is this difference in nature of scientific and spiritual understanding that allows them to work together.
That was confusing ... are you saying that any "proof" that a god exists (and by extension, therefore, that creationism is true) is limited to each believer's personal experiences?
Evolution is regarded as an accurate scientific hypothesis because it is supported by a range of evidence which anyone, who wanted to, would be able to observe (e.g. fossils, carbon dating, whatever).
I think by "communal proof" you mean the process of corroboration of scientific results which all point to the same hypothesis. However, nobody can observe your own memories of your own experiences except you. Your own personal "proof" cannot possibly be corroborated.
Post by: Glockmeister on September 16, 2009, 06:55:09 pm
I haven't read what other people have said but excuse me if i have repeated what has already been said. If evolution does exist, then why aren't apes and monkeys still transforming, how did they just stop? also Darwin didnt even believe what he made up, he was shocked that people believed him. Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.
A few posts ago I've gave the example of organisms that we can observe undergoing evolution. Bacteria (e.g. E. Coli), though various process can gain antibiotic resistance. Bacteria with resistance to say Streptomycin, will be able to survive when exposed to an environment of Streptomycin antibiotics, whereas other bacteria would die off. Over several lifetimes (which for bacteria such as E. Coli is quite short), you would see more and more of Streptomycin Resistant strains. This gives rise to the sorts of antibiotic resistance that you can see in hospitals and communities alike.
Remember to talk about evolution, you're talking about lifetimes, not time absolutely. Humans can live for about 80 or so years. It would take ages before being able to see the sorts of changes that you can see very quickly in say E. Coli.
Post by: excal on September 16, 2009, 06:58:16 pm
Like this better??
'Belief in God requires faith and a personal test, there is no communal test'
When I said 'no test' with relation to religion, I meant there is no universal evidence. One mans 'test' will not satisfy anothers skepticism, because it is supernatural it does not fit in with general world views and is thus rejected by everyone who has not had personal proof.
Belief comes from understanding the 'proof'(personal or communal) for yourself. Where this proof comes from is different for all things. With religion to understand for yourself you must in some way witness God, be this an act or communication or anything else, the main thing is the personal experience must provide rock solid evidence to you that God is real, if you do not have this you stand no chance of continuing belief.
There must be strong communal proof for any scientific hypothesis, as it must withstand the scrutiny of the scientific community. What happens with religion cannot happen with scientific hypotheses, you must find strong evidence for your ideas in order to be able to show others that your ideas are correct/the best explanation for unexplained occurrences or better than other explanations.
i.e. if a monkey spirit came and told you it is your ancestor it may make you believe but it will mean nothing except lower credibility amongst scientists and probably a straight jacket.
This applies to evolution you must either understand why you believe it by considering the evidence yourself or you just trust all the scientist(majority) who agree.
All belief requires some kind of personal 'test' whether this test can be shared is where logic(fit in with common sense and is natural comes in, all scientific proof must be logical(shareable), all religious proof is not logical(cannot be shared to have same effect)
It is this difference in nature of scientific and spiritual understanding that allows them to work together.
The logic of this argument fails with the first sentence. A 'personal' test cannot be proof that something is absolute fact. Let's take this for an example:
"I believe that the engine powers the tyres on an aircraft" (my 'faith' in that fact)
"I have seen that when I apply power to the engine, the aircraft moves on its tyres" (my 'personal' test seemingly proving that fact)
When in fact, the engine creates thrust which moves the aircraft that moves the tyres.
The point I'm trying to make is that personal 'tests' can and are flawed. It has been well established that group decision making is often better than individual decision making.
Also, the logic of your post seems to suggests that a belief of creationism and evolution can co-exist in the same person at the same time. I'm pretty sure that doublethink takes a bit more effort than that.
Post by: TrueLight on September 16, 2009, 07:11:11 pm
I haven't read what other people have said but excuse me if i have repeated what has already been said. If evolution does exist, then why aren't apes and monkeys still transforming, how did they just stop? also Darwin didnt even believe what he made up, he was shocked that people believed him. Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.
A few posts ago I've gave the example of organisms that we can observe undergoing evolution. Bacteria (e.g. E. Coli), though various process can gain antibiotic resistance. Bacteria with resistance to say Streptomycin, will be able to survive when exposed to an environment of Streptomycin antibiotics, whereas other bacteria would die off. Over several lifetimes (which for bacteria such as E. Coli is quite short), you would see more and more of Streptomycin Resistant strains. This gives rise to the sorts of antibiotic resistance that you can see in hospitals and communities alike.
Remember to talk about evolution, you're talking about lifetimes, not time absolutely. Humans can live for about 80 or so years. It would take ages before being able to see the sorts of changes that you can see very quickly in say E. Coli.
this is true, that on small scale changes like that do occur but I dont think you can equate that to an ape turning into a human
you can theorise that it does but no ones gonna live that long lol so no one actually knows
Post by: Glockmeister on September 16, 2009, 07:30:40 pm
I haven't read what other people have said but excuse me if i have repeated what has already been said. If evolution does exist, then why aren't apes and monkeys still transforming, how did they just stop? also Darwin didnt even believe what he made up, he was shocked that people believed him. Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.
A few posts ago I've gave the example of organisms that we can observe undergoing evolution. Bacteria (e.g. E. Coli), though various process can gain antibiotic resistance. Bacteria with resistance to say Streptomycin, will be able to survive when exposed to an environment of Streptomycin antibiotics, whereas other bacteria would die off. Over several lifetimes (which for bacteria such as E. Coli is quite short), you would see more and more of Streptomycin Resistant strains. This gives rise to the sorts of antibiotic resistance that you can see in hospitals and communities alike.
Remember to talk about evolution, you're talking about lifetimes, not time absolutely. Humans can live for about 80 or so years. It would take ages before being able to see the sorts of changes that you can see very quickly in say E. Coli.
this is true, that on small scale changes like that do occur but I dont think you can equate that to an ape turning into a human
you can theorise that it does but no ones gonna live that long lol so no one actually knows
Well to be able to logically claim that, you'd have to suggest a mechanism that could 'block' that process from happening, because the same thing happens in apes and humans*. Otherwise it'd be just a very logically poor argument to suggest that evolution does not explain the diversity of species that we see too.
*Sort of. Genetic recombination does occur in meiosis where differing chromosomes from father and mother combine to create progeny that is distinct from both mother and father.
Post by: ninwa on September 16, 2009, 07:35:45 pm
this is true, that on small scale changes like that do occur but I dont think you can equate that to an ape turning into a human
you can theorise that it does but no ones gonna live that long lol so no one actually knows
Why not? Why can't such "small scale" changes have occurred gradually over millions of years? What makes humans so special that they are the only organisms on earth who don't evolve? I would refer you back to dcc's post on the pure arrogance of this contention.
Didn't god apparently make the animals too? In fact, all living things? So technically these bacteria shouldn't have been able to evolve.
Theres a wealth of evidence to support the idea of animal evolution, like.. uh... vestigial structures... (I think? It's been a long time since I did biology. Help, anyone here who knows biology! :P)
you can theorise that it does but no ones gonna live that long lol so no one actually knowsYou don't NEED to live that long to get a good idea. Fossils? Carbon dating?
No one may know for sure, but there sure is a lot more evidence for evolution than there is for creationism. Though if anyone can prove that the entire human species was magically created by some supernatural being, please feel free to.
Post by: TrueLight on September 16, 2009, 07:37:04 pm
Post by: TrueLight on September 16, 2009, 07:38:08 pm
Post by: ninwa on September 16, 2009, 07:40:26 pm
OMG how many times to i have to say i dont think god plopped us on the planet magically!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! last time i will say itSo if you don't believe in creationism, or evolution, then how do you think we got here?
Please don't tell me it's this: http://credomutwa.com/2008/08/big-bang-theory-challenged-new-theory-on-the-origins-of-the-universe-and-humankind-surfaces/
Post by: TrueLight on September 16, 2009, 07:43:47 pm
post from earlier....quoting ron paul
[evolution]"because it doesn't change the nature, the only thing that changes the nature of our life is our understanding of about what personal liberty is, and restraining the government and making sure we have a government that will never restrain you in making a discussion on these topics."
wow that article was strange...
Post by: clinton_09 on September 16, 2009, 07:50:07 pm
Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.Because there couldn't possibly be any other reason one would become a Christian except to signify their disbelief in the theory of evolution ... ?
no i wasnt saying that, but the fact he created the theory, then through further scientific research discovering his "theory" was not correct but christianity was, is a significant point. I'm a christian myself and IMO i believe evolution is ridiculous, however if anyone wishes to believe in that theory then good for them.
Actually, Darwin was born Christian and over the course of his life became agnostic (after his discovery of the theory of Evolution). There is a myth that on his deathbed he reverted to christianity, but this was actually largely promulgated by the Catholic church in a pathetic, desperate attempt to discredit Darwin.
It has since been debunked as a lie by both his children and many historians. Perhaps you were fed this lie by someone attempting to brainwash you into believing your religion, but if you do some googling, you will quickly find that Darwin died an agonstic, and an outspoken critic of the bible as an absolute history.
I wasnt brainwashed into my religion like in a cult. i chose my religion
Post by: m@tty on September 16, 2009, 07:50:19 pm
That was confusing ... are you saying that any "proof" that a god exists (and by extension, therefore, that creationism is true) is limited to each believer's personal experiences?Yes.
I think by "communal proof" you mean the process of corroboration of scientific results which all point to the same hypothesis.'Communal proof' = proof that follows a logical path and therefore can be shared - yeah what you said. Proof of God often does not follow a logical path and thus cannot be shared to any advantage.
the logic of your post seems to suggests that a belief of creationism and evolution can co-exist in the same person at the same time. I'm pretty sure that doublethink takes a bit more effort than that.That was not with reference to evolution.
Adding to what I said, science and spirituality can work together in most cases, except where your religions text(i.e. bible) or inderstanding is contradicted by some hypothesis.
In the case of evolution from the bible the earth is only ~6000 years old so for me that puts out evolution due to the timescale.
The point I'm trying to make is that personal 'tests' can and are flawed. It has been well established that group decision making is often better than individual decision making.
That is true, personal 'tests' can definitely be flawed, their reliability must be judged case by case.
In an earlier post you identified yourself as Catholic, I am going to assume you have witnessed an event from which you know God exists.
This is something I am referring to as a 'personal test'. Are you saying that your acknowledgement of God is flawed?
Post by: Glockmeister on September 16, 2009, 08:08:56 pm
thats true that that occurs to give us different humans but are are genes gonna recombine to turn us back into apes over the next century... no way rubbish i say
It is possible. Who am I to predict what forces Nature could bring in the next millions of years? There are many circumstances where certain characteristics that we have, for example intelligence could not be useful (I'm awfully tempted to say for example, this argument, but I'll won't go that low). Say the worst possible result of climate change happens and floods/rain/fires destroys all recognisable civilisation. In the ensuring chaos, many people will die. In this sort of environment, people who are more aggressive will have a greater chance of survival than those who aren't. Then there is a greater chance that such people will be able to reproduce, thereby allowing those characteristics to be exhibited within the human population.
Post by: enwiabe on September 17, 2009, 05:55:56 pm
I wasnt brainwashed into my religion like in a cult. i chose my religion
Answer me these questions, then (you're more than welcome not to, and if they make you feel uncomfortable, please do not feel obliged):
1) Do your parents follow the same religion as you?
2) Did your parents educate you in your religion during your formative years?
3) Did your parents send you to religious learning institutions (e.g. sunday school)?
4) Did your parents and/or religious learning institution teach you about other religions in detail comparable to that of your current religion before year 7?
Post by: Glockmeister on September 17, 2009, 05:56:47 pm
That was confusing ... are you saying that any "proof" that a god exists (and by extension, therefore, that creationism is true) is limited to each believer's personal experiences?Yes.
Then I must believe evolution, because I have seen this occurs in my experience. I have seen bacteria, when manipulated being able to gain antibiotic resistance and grow immensely on a culture plate. The difference here is that, so did the 300 or so other people who take my course.
I think by "communal proof" you mean the process of corroboration of scientific results which all point to the same hypothesis.'Communal proof' = proof that follows a logical path and therefore can be shared - yeah what you said. Proof of God often does not follow a logical path and thus cannot be shared to any advantage.
Three words. Flying Spagetti Monster.
the logic of your post seems to suggests that a belief of creationism and evolution can co-exist in the same person at the same time. I'm pretty sure that doublethink takes a bit more effort than that.That was not with reference to evolution.
Adding to what I said, science and spirituality can work together in most cases, except where your religions text(i.e. bible) or inderstanding is contradicted by some hypothesis.
In the case of evolution from the bible the earth is only ~6000 years old so for me that puts out evolution due to the timescale.
Ah. A Young Earth Creationist. Unfortunately, I don't buy that argument. The Earth is aeons longer than that. You must remember that it wasn't God that wrote that book, but men. It's not infallible. In fact the biologist that I quoted earlier, Theodosius Dobzhansky, made the point in the same essay where that quote came from
"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness." (Dobzhansky, 1973, p.129)
Two questions needs to be asked and answered before evolution can be really be disproven. One, what empirical evidence is there to suggest that evolution is somehow completely wrong? And two, what evidence is there for creationism?
References:
Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35, 125-129.
Post by: clinton_09 on September 17, 2009, 10:44:21 pm
How did the apes get on earth, how were these "transforming apes" created? i cannot find this answer anywhere
Post by: ninwa on September 17, 2009, 10:53:08 pm
i cannot find this answer anywhere...
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolutionary_history_of_life
Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is generally accepted that prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 3–4 billion years ago.
The eukaryotes were the next major change in cell structure. These came from ancient bacteria being engulfed by the ancestors of eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis. The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent co-evolution, with the bacteria evolving into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes. An independent second engulfment of cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants.
The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period. The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.
Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion. Here, the majority of types of modern animals appeared in the fossil record, as well as unique lineages that subsequently became extinct. Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have been proposed, including the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere from photosynthesis.
About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonized the land, and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals. Amphibians first appeared around 300 million years ago, followed by early amniotes, then mammals around 200 million years ago and birds around 100 million years ago (both from "reptile"-like lineages). However, despite the evolution of these large animals, smaller organisms similar to the types that evolved early in this process continue to be highly successful and dominate the Earth, with the majority of both biomass and species being prokaryotes.
For details on the Cambrian explosion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Post by: Glockmeister on September 17, 2009, 11:08:18 pm
i cannot find this answer anywhere...Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolutionary_history_of_lifeDespite the uncertainty on how life began, it is generally accepted that prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 3–4 billion years ago.
The eukaryotes were the next major change in cell structure. These came from ancient bacteria being engulfed by the ancestors of eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis. The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent co-evolution, with the bacteria evolving into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes. An independent second engulfment of cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants.
The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period. The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.
Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion. Here, the majority of types of modern animals appeared in the fossil record, as well as unique lineages that subsequently became extinct. Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have been proposed, including the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere from photosynthesis.
About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonized the land, and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals. Amphibians first appeared around 300 million years ago, followed by early amniotes, then mammals around 200 million years ago and birds around 100 million years ago (both from "reptile"-like lineages). However, despite the evolution of these large animals, smaller organisms similar to the types that evolved early in this process continue to be highly successful and dominate the Earth, with the majority of both biomass and species being prokaryotes.
For details on the Cambrian explosion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
I prefer diagrams
(http://www.bioone.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/bioone/journals/production/ambt/2004/00027685-66.8/0002-7685%282004%29066%5B0560%3Abaptot%5D2.0.co%3B2/images/medium/i0002-7685-66-8-560-f08.gif)
There's an explanation on the diagram, but just to give you a basic idea, this diagram is called a Phylogenetic Tree and in this diagram basically uses commonalty of genes between animals of the Hominoidea family (which includes us). This allows to track when common species diverged to form different animals. Image from Maier (2004).
You could build one of these things for every practically any known species on the planet, provided you have some of their genetic material.
That answer your question?
References:
Maier, C. A. (2004). Building a Phylogenetic Tree of the Human & Ape Superfamily Using DNA-DNA Hybridization Data. The American Biology Teacher 66(8), 560-566. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2004)066[0560:BAPTOT]2.0.CO;2
Post by: xXNovaxX on September 17, 2009, 11:16:41 pm
Post by: QuantumJG on September 17, 2009, 11:26:24 pm
I haven't read what other people have said but excuse me if i have repeated what has already been said. If evolution does exist, then why aren't apes and monkeys still transforming, how did they just stop? also Darwin didnt even believe what he made up, he was shocked that people believed him. Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.
The theory is that we have evolved from lower order species! This is the main part to the theory.
So with the apes part:
There was a time when humans and apes were linked together, there was a time when our ancestor was the same ancestor for a whale, etc. Evolution is like a tree, there it starts from one thing and expands making branches. So there was a primal ape creature and then after ages this creature evolved into two other forms: one which developed into apes and one which developed into humans, for us we had a lot of branches but we were the only to survive because we were able to outsmart the other human species in times of competition.
Adaptation explains why there ae several races of humans, humans in times of lack of resources migrated to different regions of the globe to live in new areas and hence over time adapted to suit those areas.
The thing with religious people is that they play that clichéd "why can't monkeys turn into human now" trick over and over like a broken record to try and make the laymen person think that scientists are "out-there" weirdos. If you guys actually looked at the science you will see why monkeys can't turn into humans, because they split away from our common ancestor ages ago.
Anyway as what Ali G said to the guy who doesn't believe evolution: "Have you eaten a banana" I lol'd at this because its the only answer that guy deserved.
Post by: ninwa on September 17, 2009, 11:27:41 pm
Post by: xXNovaxX on September 17, 2009, 11:28:56 pm
Post by: xXNovaxX on September 17, 2009, 11:31:15 pm
That's so interesting! Does that mean from what I udnerstood, they can NEVER even in 999999 years turn into humans again, or is it we just can't tell. Wow, thanks for that, nice and concise.I haven't read what other people have said but excuse me if i have repeated what has already been said. If evolution does exist, then why aren't apes and monkeys still transforming, how did they just stop? also Darwin didnt even believe what he made up, he was shocked that people believed him. Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.So with the apes part:
There was a time when humans and apes were linked together, there was a time when our ancestor was the same ancestor for a whale, etc. Evolution is like a tree, there it starts from one thing and expands making branches. So there was a primal ape creature and then after ages this creature evolved into two other forms: one which developed into apes and one which developed into humans, for us we had a lot of branches but we were the only to survive because we were able to outsmart the other human species in times of competition.
Adaptation explains why there ae several races of humans, humans in times of lack of resources migrated to different regions of the globe to live in new areas and hence over time adapted to suit those areas.
The thing with religious people is that they play that clichéd "why can't monkeys turn into human now" trick over and over like a broken record to try and make the laymen person think that scientists are "out-there" weirdos. If you guys actually looked at the science you will see why monkeys can't turn into humans, because they split away from our common ancestor ages ago.
Anyway as what Ali G said to the guy who doesn't believe evolution: "Have you eaten a banana" I lol'd at this because its the only answer that guy deserved.
The theory is that we have evolved from lower order species! This is the main part to the theory.
mod action: fixed your quoting :P
Post by: Glockmeister on September 17, 2009, 11:45:15 pm
how comes apes don't turn into humans anymore.....lol, a rather blunt question. But yeah.
One, in theory, anything could turn into anything but for complex systems like ours or apes for that matter,you'd be long dead before you see it. Like you know, only dead for 11,999,920 years.
Secondly, as you can see from the image from Maier, we are apes. Apes is a very poor taxonomical term. Let's use some binomial classification. Let's use Gorilla gorilla, which is a type of gorilla incidently. It's diverged from the rest of the Hominidae family a long time ago (12 million years), and so it's unlikely that modern day gorillas with turn into humans. They may turn into something else however.
Post by: QuantumJG on September 18, 2009, 12:04:40 am
That's so interesting! Does that mean from what I udnerstood, they can NEVER even in 999999 years turn into humans again, or is it we just can't tell. Wow, thanks for that, nice and concise.I haven't read what other people have said but excuse me if i have repeated what has already been said. If evolution does exist, then why aren't apes and monkeys still transforming, how did they just stop? also Darwin didnt even believe what he made up, he was shocked that people believed him. Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.So with the apes part:
There was a time when humans and apes were linked together, there was a time when our ancestor was the same ancestor for a whale, etc. Evolution is like a tree, there it starts from one thing and expands making branches. So there was a primal ape creature and then after ages this creature evolved into two other forms: one which developed into apes and one which developed into humans, for us we had a lot of branches but we were the only to survive because we were able to outsmart the other human species in times of competition.
Adaptation explains why there ae several races of humans, humans in times of lack of resources migrated to different regions of the globe to live in new areas and hence over time adapted to suit those areas.
The thing with religious people is that they play that clichéd "why can't monkeys turn into human now" trick over and over like a broken record to try and make the laymen person think that scientists are "out-there" weirdos. If you guys actually looked at the science you will see why monkeys can't turn into humans, because they split away from our common ancestor ages ago.
Anyway as what Ali G said to the guy who doesn't believe evolution: "Have you eaten a banana" I lol'd at this because its the only answer that guy deserved.
The theory is that we have evolved from lower order species! This is the main part to the theory.
mod action: fixed your quoting :P
Apes in essence wont turn into say us, but, it could be possible that apes evolve into a different kind of human species in such that they could end up advancing in communication skills, become completely bipedal, improve intelligence, etc.
My biology teacher in year 10 said there are theories that humans may evolve to be double jointed, humans may loose their nails (we don't really need them to hunt or to groom ourselves), the average human IQ could end up increasing damatically, longer life expectancy (considering over time we have gone from life expectancies of >40 years to now atleast 70, it could end up being normal to live to 100), with the supply of food we could loose our ability to store excess energy as fat as what we did ages ago to be able to handle famine therefore lower the number of obese people, our gait could end up being improved to combat any joint problems associated with aging, etc.
Post by: enwiabe on September 18, 2009, 12:07:52 am
Post by: Glockmeister on September 18, 2009, 12:09:50 am
That's so interesting! Does that mean from what I udnerstood, they can NEVER even in 999999 years turn into humans again, or is it we just can't tell. Wow, thanks for that, nice and concise.I haven't read what other people have said but excuse me if i have repeated what has already been said. If evolution does exist, then why aren't apes and monkeys still transforming, how did they just stop? also Darwin didnt even believe what he made up, he was shocked that people believed him. Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.So with the apes part:
There was a time when humans and apes were linked together, there was a time when our ancestor was the same ancestor for a whale, etc. Evolution is like a tree, there it starts from one thing and expands making branches. So there was a primal ape creature and then after ages this creature evolved into two other forms: one which developed into apes and one which developed into humans, for us we had a lot of branches but we were the only to survive because we were able to outsmart the other human species in times of competition.
Adaptation explains why there ae several races of humans, humans in times of lack of resources migrated to different regions of the globe to live in new areas and hence over time adapted to suit those areas.
The thing with religious people is that they play that clichéd "why can't monkeys turn into human now" trick over and over like a broken record to try and make the laymen person think that scientists are "out-there" weirdos. If you guys actually looked at the science you will see why monkeys can't turn into humans, because they split away from our common ancestor ages ago.
Anyway as what Ali G said to the guy who doesn't believe evolution: "Have you eaten a banana" I lol'd at this because its the only answer that guy deserved.
The theory is that we have evolved from lower order species! This is the main part to the theory.
mod action: fixed your quoting :P
Apes in essence wont turn into say us, but, it could be possible that apes evolve into a different kind of human species in such that they could end up advancing in communication skills, become completely bipedal, improve intelligence, etc.
My biology teacher in year 10 said there are theories that humans may evolve to be double jointed, humans may loose their nails (we don't really need them to hunt or to groom ourselves), the average human IQ could end up increasing damatically, longer life expectancy (considering over time we have gone from life expectancies of >40 years to now atleast 70, it could end up being normal to live to 100), with the supply of food we could loose our ability to store excess energy as fat as what we did ages ago to be able to handle famine therefore lower the number of obese people, our gait could end up being improved to combat any joint problems associated with aging, etc.
Of course, there the other possibility that we'd end up blind, lame, mentally retarded, deformed etc. if there are significant changes to the environment which means that we would not be able to survive in the current way that we live (climate change could potentially do that)
Post by: TrueLight on September 18, 2009, 12:14:09 am
Post by: Glockmeister on September 18, 2009, 12:15:50 am
my points still stand! you cannot prove evolution was the reason we are like we are today ..... some of the above are just things we observe and test now that people use as a reason to theorise how we came about
you can't prove gravity was the reason things fall when they are dropped...
Post by: mark_alec on September 18, 2009, 12:20:40 am
That is, pragmatically, believing in evolution is more useful than believing in Intelligent Design, Creationism or Lamarckism.
Post by: TrueLight on September 18, 2009, 12:27:45 am
Post by: mark_alec on September 18, 2009, 12:38:20 am
That is forcing their belief onto people, because regardless of what individuals think, evolution *is* currently an integral part of modern biology.
Post by: TrueLight on September 18, 2009, 12:52:13 am
um its not directly relevant here, actually... it is directly relevant but i like ron pauls answer here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiVy2NbWcgo
i loled at 6:27-6:42
Post by: Glockmeister on September 18, 2009, 01:01:06 am
hmmm thats why theres catholic schools, jewish schools, arab schools? ... so that if they want that taught to them they can choose to go there... but also evolution shouldnt be forced onto people to say yes this is how we came about this is the all and end all theory of everything... thats wrong too... people should just be taught to think for themselves and debate.....lol or as ron paul would say let the free market decide what we should do!
um its not directly relevant here, actually... it is directly relevant but i like ron pauls answer here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiVy2NbWcgo
i loled at 6:27-6:42
That's the thing, how could you expect high school students to be able to debate things like these? In any case, it's not something that should be deal as a 'free market' thing. The scientific community, by and large, agrees with this theory, which is why it is taught like so in Science classes, like it should (it doesn't happen in all schools, even here as I only found out this year).
Post by: TrueLight on September 18, 2009, 01:08:39 am
i think he wants more private schools not public because the funding comes from the government who get controlled by certain peoples belief but eh...
but personally hey i get taught all this stuff and i dont mind it its very useful as i said
Post by: /0 on September 18, 2009, 01:49:20 am
I reckon they should ban compulsory C.E., i mean they [evidently] don't have compulsory evolution do they
Post by: TrueTears on September 18, 2009, 02:26:59 am
Post by: TrueLight on September 18, 2009, 05:04:50 am
Post by: Mao on September 18, 2009, 08:22:15 am
hmmm thats why theres catholic schools, jewish schools, arab schools? ... so that if they want that taught to them they can choose to go there... but also evolution shouldnt be forced onto people to say yes this is how we came about this is the all and end all theory of everything... thats wrong too... people should just be taught to think for themselves and debate.....lol or as ron paul would say let the free market decide what we should do!
Evolution isn't forced onto people, people accept it because it is a good theory, like general relativity. If religion doesn't want it, then I guess these people should not study modern biology.
Post by: excal on September 18, 2009, 04:14:39 pm
That is true, personal 'tests' can definitely be flawed, their reliability must be judged case by case.
In an earlier post you identified yourself as Catholic, I am going to assume you have witnessed an event from which you know God exists.
This is something I am referring to as a 'personal test'. Are you saying that your acknowledgement of God is flawed?
The nature of my belief of God is none of your business, to be frank. Using this kind of argument is also known as ad hominem, which is a bad thing.
Post by: /0 on September 18, 2009, 04:41:35 pm
yeah but you voluntary went to a catholic school right? and you knew it was compulsory before you went? and if that was the biggest problem, then you wouldn't have gone to that school?
No offense, but I think religion is one the last things many of my friends would have considered when choosing a school. I've been to another Anglican school and the general sentiment was the same. I think that most non-religious/agnostic students/parents would think of the school's religion as an incidental thing, and they are more concerned with the academic/social reputation of the school. I think the number of religious schools is pretty disproportionate to the number of religious students in Australia - to rule out certain schools because of religious programs would be ruling out a massive chunk of possibilities.
Post by: TrueLight on September 18, 2009, 04:56:04 pm
Post by: /0 on September 18, 2009, 05:43:00 pm
thats exactly my point that is why i said IF it was the biggest problem... so it wasn't for you, thats why you still went...but the option is still there for students who absolutely want that religion taught to them... and so you can't just go i don't religion to not be in catholic schools...(which quie frankyl i don't remember you writing oh wellz... lol)
haha you do have a point
Post by: QuantumJG on September 18, 2009, 06:18:40 pm
Unfortunately, there is a group of creationists that have a knack of saying "We don't want evolution taught in schools" and/or "They should teach alternative theories in schools."
That is forcing their belief onto people, because regardless of what individuals think, evolution *is* currently an integral part of modern biology.
This is so true an I will give you a bit of my history.
It took me until the age of 16 to learn about the theory of evolution. The main reason is that my grandparents are catholic and they raised my parents as Catholics (I.e going to a catholic school, church, etc), but, now they don't go to church mainly because they only did when they were young because it was forced on them. They allowed me to choose my beliefs (despite my grandparents trying to intervene) because they thought what their parents did by forcing a religion on someone is morally wrong.
At family gatherings (especially when my father's sister's kids have their conformation) I have to keep this knowledge (theory of evolution) of mine to myself, especially if my cousins ask me as to if I ever had my
conformation. I respect my relatives religous beliefs because I love them, but something tells me that the
feeling would not be mutual. My parents would probably get blamed for why I believe in evolution.
The ironic part of this though is that I don't use evolution to explain the origin of life, I use it to understand how life has advanced. I will never believe that god created life for two pretty good reasons:
- People assume god is a man (why not a woman - 21st century and we still have this man>woman view - disgusting.), hence, if god is a man why did the most primal creatures reproduce from splitting or asexually reproducing.
- Matter can NOT be created as this violates the biggest principle of physics (conservation of energy).
So how life started on Earth is still an open question, like with the big bang theory we know what happened ~10^-41 seconds after, but at time t=0?, Here is an even better question: "does time t = 0" even exist? Yes I know this sounds contradictory but it could be like a mathematical function where f(0) does not exist, but, as t -> 0 you will get something.
Post by: Glockmeister on September 18, 2009, 06:41:59 pm
Unfortunately, there is a group of creationists that have a knack of saying "We don't want evolution taught in schools" and/or "They should teach alternative theories in schools."
That is forcing their belief onto people, because regardless of what individuals think, evolution *is* currently an integral part of modern biology.
This is so true an I will give you a bit of my history.
It took me until the age of 16 to learn about the theory of evolution. The main reason is that my grandparents are catholic and they raised my parents as Catholics (I.e going to a catholic school, church, etc), but, now they don't go to church mainly because they only did when they were young because it was forced on them. They allowed me to choose my beliefs (despite my grandparents trying to intervene) because they thought what their parents did by forcing a religion on someone is morally wrong.
At family gatherings (especially when my father's sister's kids have their conformation) I have to keep this knowledge (theory of evolution) of mine to myself, especially if my cousins ask me as to if I ever had my
conformation. I respect my relatives religous beliefs because I love them, but something tells me that the
feeling would not be mutual. My parents would probably get blamed for why I believe in evolution.
The ironic part of this though is that I don't use evolution to explain the origin of life, I use it to understand how life has advanced. I will never believe that god created life for two pretty good reasons:
- People assume god is a man (why not a woman - 21st century and we still have this man>woman view - disgusting.), hence, if god is a man why did the most primal creatures reproduce from splitting or asexually reproducing.
- Matter can NOT be created as this violates the biggest principle of physics (conservation of energy).
So how life started on Earth is still an open question, like with the big bang theory we know what happened ~10^-41 seconds after, but at time t=0?, Here is an even better question: "does time t = 0" even exist? Yes I know this sounds contradictory but it could be like a mathematical function where f(0) does not exist, but, as t -> 0 you will get something.
What about t= -1 ?
Post by: /0 on September 18, 2009, 06:43:06 pm
Post by: QuantumJG on September 18, 2009, 08:41:44 pm
Big Bang sounds very fishy...
I'm confused! "big bang sounds fishy"?
Post by: TrueTears on September 18, 2009, 08:43:08 pm
lol the name sounds fishy to me but the theory behind it doesn't. I keep thinking of dbz big bang kamehameha when I hear "big bang theory" -.-Big Bang sounds very fishy...
I'm confused! "big bang sounds fishy"?
Post by: Mao on September 19, 2009, 12:20:17 am
lol the name sounds fishy to me but the theory behind it doesn't. I keep thinking of dbz big bang kamehameha when I hear "big bang theory" -.-Big Bang sounds very fishy...
I'm confused! "big bang sounds fishy"?
Big bang theory: for no apparent reason, incredible amounts of matter was created. Through extremely improbable odds of:
- *slightly* more matter was created than antimatter
- there were small density fluctuations which allowed gravity to form clusters of matter
- nuclear fusion to create matter beyond hydrogen, then the spread of this matter by exploding stars
- extremely complicated combination of atoms which eventually became us, a massive massive structure made of very large and complex organic molecules.
God: for no apparent reason, God was there, he created us.
Both sounds as plausible as each other, honestly.
Post by: kurrymuncher on September 19, 2009, 01:25:04 am
Unfortunately, there is a group of creationists that have a knack of saying "We don't want evolution taught in schools" and/or "They should teach alternative theories in schools."
That is forcing their belief onto people, because regardless of what individuals think, evolution *is* currently an integral part of modern biology.
This is so true an I will give you a bit of my history.
It took me until the age of 16 to learn about the theory of evolution. The main reason is that my grandparents are catholic and they raised my parents as Catholics (I.e going to a catholic school, church, etc), but, now they don't go to church mainly because they only did when they were young because it was forced on them. They allowed me to choose my beliefs (despite my grandparents trying to intervene) because they thought what their parents did by forcing a religion on someone is morally wrong.
At family gatherings (especially when my father's sister's kids have their conformation) I have to keep this knowledge (theory of evolution) of mine to myself, especially if my cousins ask me as to if I ever had my
conformation. I respect my relatives religous beliefs because I love them, but something tells me that the
feeling would not be mutual. My parents would probably get blamed for why I believe in evolution.
The ironic part of this though is that I don't use evolution to explain the origin of life, I use it to understand how life has advanced. I will never believe that god created life for two pretty good reasons:
- People assume god is a man (why not a woman - 21st century and we still have this man>woman view - disgusting.), hence, if god is a man why did the most primal creatures reproduce from splitting or asexually reproducing.
- Matter can NOT be created as this violates the biggest principle of physics (conservation of energy).
So how life started on Earth is still an open question, like with the big bang theory we know what happened ~10^-41 seconds after, but at time t=0?, Here is an even better question: "does time t = 0" even exist? Yes I know this sounds contradictory but it could be like a mathematical function where f(0) does not exist, but, as t -> 0 you will get something.
What about t= -1 ?
what about t=-1?? there is no such thing. What are you trying to say? ???
Post by: kamil9876 on September 19, 2009, 01:30:18 am
Post by: TrueTears on September 19, 2009, 01:31:03 am
lulz hypothetically, if t=-1 was known (and nothing before it) then would it become the new t=0? and then the age of the universe, to our knowledge will get a +1 (translation in t-axis(just for the sake of adding redundant mathematical obscurities, as I see is the trend lately)).LOL hahahhahahaahah
Post by: kurrymuncher on September 19, 2009, 01:34:09 am
lulz hypothetically, if t=-1 was known (and nothing before it) then would it become the new t=0? and then the age of the universe, to our knowledge will get a +1 (translation in t-axis(just for the sake of adding redundant mathematical obscurities, as I see is the trend lately)).
but, what if there were also dilations about the t axis, what would happen then??
Post by: TrueTears on September 19, 2009, 01:41:29 am
Hence there exists Einstein's time dilation formula. You could use that.lulz hypothetically, if t=-1 was known (and nothing before it) then would it become the new t=0? and then the age of the universe, to our knowledge will get a +1 (translation in t-axis(just for the sake of adding redundant mathematical obscurities, as I see is the trend lately)).
but, what if there were also dilations about the t axis, what would happen then??
Post by: kurrymuncher on September 19, 2009, 01:43:21 am
Hence there exists Einstein's time dilation formula. You could use that.lulz hypothetically, if t=-1 was known (and nothing before it) then would it become the new t=0? and then the age of the universe, to our knowledge will get a +1 (translation in t-axis(just for the sake of adding redundant mathematical obscurities, as I see is the trend lately)).
but, what if there were also dilations about the t axis, what would happen then??
ahhhh yeah shit. forgot about those.
Post by: excal on September 19, 2009, 03:57:09 am
Post by: /0 on September 19, 2009, 08:04:24 am
Post by: enwiabe on September 19, 2009, 10:16:41 am
M-theory doesn't have anything to do with the universe. It's a theory which ties together string theory and some other speculative theories and attempts to solve the conundrum of "if cells are made up of atoms which are made up of protons, neutrons, electrons which are made up of quarks which are made up of even smaller shit WHAT IS THE SMALLER SHIT MADE UP OF?!?!?!?"
And so M-theorists think we're really just vibrating bundles of energy strings! But unfortunately, it's got nothing about the beginning of the universe. Big bang theory is still the leading theory but requires major refinement.
Post by: /0 on September 19, 2009, 12:45:54 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology?
Post by: enwiabe on September 19, 2009, 02:01:01 pm
admin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology?
Ooooh, I'd never heard of that before. Shoulda said Brane cosmology though, cuz as it says in the article it's not *strictly* derived from M-theory :P
M-theory is just about the strings (and related shizzle), but you could develop some physics from it about the origins of the universe as Brane cosmology appears to do.
Post by: QuantumJG on September 19, 2009, 03:54:21 pm
I think the big bang theory might be superseded by M theory... I don't like big bang theory because, at the moment, it provides no explanation for why the universe began - the very claim for which it is so popularly famous. It completely misses the point. While it is a good explanation up to the Planck era, but it gives us nothing beforehand, and I don't think it ever will.
I personally don't think we ever will actually find out the origin of the universe. Of course in my lifetime (hopefully) we'll find out to a better degree what happened even earlier than
Lol having debates about string theory and even general relativity that's a forum for PhD students to discuss, YOU WILL NOT learn about this stuff on a detailed level as an undergraduate.
Post by: Mao on September 19, 2009, 10:44:35 pm