ZFGC
General => Other Discussion => Boards => Archive => Debates => Topic started by: Ishdarian on May 16, 2006, 11:03:26 pm
-
I just want to clarify before we begin:
This is NOT creation VS. evolution, because that is against the rules.
The question is:
Does evolution itself have enough credible evidence to stand upon and be called fact? Or has enough of the evidence been disproven to show that it is just a theory still being built?
-
I still see it as a theory and while I believe it, I will not enforce that belief on others. Oh and when all else fails, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will save us all! I've been touched by His noodly appendage!
-
I just want to clarify before we begin:
This is NOT creation VS. evolution, because that is against the rules.
The question is:
Does evolution itself have enough credible evidence to stand upon and be called fact? Or has enough of the evidence been disproven to show that it is just a theory still being built?
Does creationism itself have enough credible evidence to stand upon and be called fact? Or has enough of the evidence been disprovev to show that it is just a theory being built.
I believe in evolution, it seems alot more credible
-
Fact and theory.
-
Fact and theory.
Why?
-
Evolution explains why animals of different species can interbreed. While one may say that the system of taxonomy is founded on an unsure science, it explains why and how species are like they are.
Creationism doesn't address why there are different kinds of similar organisms. In it, it suggests that God created various organisms. Why would he create organisms that can reproduce with other organisms to have hybrids who cannot reproduce fertile offspring? Why would he allow such Illegitimate child organisms to enhabit the Earth?
Evolution explains why and how polar bears are different from grizzlies. While they can interbreed (there was something about in on LueLinks yesterday), they are different. Why can they interbreed if they are different organisms. Why do they look similar? The answer is quite simple. Overtime, populations of the ancestoral bear were seperated and developed independently. If evolution didn't exist, then the bear couldn't survive in a new habitat. Thus, one of the bear descendent populations would die and there wouldn't be seperate species. The fact that they can reproduce though suggests they were similar at one time, but overtime they evolved to suit their environments.
Thus, evolution=fact.
-
Goodnight's right. Fact and theory.
Evolution as a process: FACT
Evolution of ape to man: THEORY
Evolution is a demonstratable phenomenon that is constantly occuring. With every passing generation of every species, that species will evolve somewhat to adapt to its conditions. In people, the most common occurence is with skin colour. Do you think that it's a fluke that people living in northern, colder regions have light skin, and people living in southern, warmer regions have darker skin? It's not. They're all human, but after thousands/millions of years, the skin colour changed in order to accomodate the conditions. If it's warmer, that usually means that the sun is stronger in that area, so the skin darkens in order to be able to resist being burned. That's by a black guy will rarely get very serious sunburn, but my red-headed, white mom can barely go outside without SPF 45 and a hat without turning red. People from mediterranian are somehwere in between and are sort of light, sort of dark, and get tan in the sunlight. Evolution is basically slow adaptation on a genetic level.
As for evolution of ape to man, that is just a theory. albeit a very supported and likely theory, a theory nonetheless. There have been countless of archeological finds that have proven that early man was in fact somewhat ape-lke and did eventually evolve into what we look like today, but there is no actual proof that we did start as apes. The theory says that some apes in Africa decended from the forested areas (for some reason) into the flat, open plains. Thehy would climb what few trees there were, but once the food ran out they would have to get out and move again. Their inability to run quickly would make them easy prey. Eventually, the apes would learn to try and look over the tall grass, since their hind legs were strong enough to stand for small amounts of time, to see if a predator was coming. They could then run away accordingly. Theoretically, after spending so much time peering over grass on their hind legs, they gained the ability to stand for longer and longer. This would go on until they were always upright. This is why early man appears hunched over. What's missing from this is the crucial "missing link", as it's called, which bridges the transformation from ape to man. Because of what we do know, that theory is very, very likely. Only, it can't be proved since the crucial piece is missing.
-
Just a theory.
There are facts to back up the theory, but it is still JUST a theory.
-
Human evolution cannot be a clear science because it is impossible to determine the history of man from a man's perspective. That means that since the only species that has understanding and reason cannot have access to observe its own development and that its development was happening to the would be observer, it cannot be proved. That is unless something like time travel occurs or a super-civilization light years away that has a super telescope receives light waves off of the Earth that show human development and send a message back to Earth to show them their past; both of which unlikely.
The presense of human evolution in small degrees suggests something more though. The amount of time humans have been alive predicted by Creationism and the amount of time it takes for a slight evolutionary change suggests that if not, then why didn't more evolution take place? Humans are still weak in certain environments and are not centiant beings. Truly, if God made us perfect and in his image, then there would be no reason for evolution, yet it exists, so he either allowed it or he isn't really there, but I don't want to debate his existence.
This is still not to say that humans evolved from apes, but evolved from some ape-like forms. Fossil records show this. The most likely thing is that they were somewhat human and that the similarites to modern-man and lesser-apes suggest that man came from ape. Apes also evolved though, so it is not like we came from the apes of today; they looked different. So, we could share a very distant ancestor.
Someone should probably edit the swear filter so it doesn't edit inword words like @$$.
-
Yeah... I know... "Ass" was removed from the filter. It made too many problems and I don't want to have to make it check whole words so that it can be censored. That would require I input every permutation of every curse-word, and unpredictable ones like "fanfuckintastic" would be completely missed. So, for now "Ass" is not a curse word.
-
Yeah, I always use a religious text as justification for censoring. So, by basing it on the Bible, ass and damn are acceptable. Ass is a word that comes up in other words a lot more that any other swear words, so other swear words can be filtered entirely.
On topic though, in Creationism, humans were created in God's image, so they are in that sense to be considered perfect. In that sense, one could say that there are human races because God's image is not a materialistic identity. Thus, they can very and yet be from the same thing. However, evolution is proven in the sense that it happens actively and that it has happened before. The time it takes to evolve and the fact that we have existed long prior to that time is clear evidence that we evolved from lesser beings. If we were how we are now, then that suggests that very little evolution takes place and yet it is shown that there has been major events that would prompt evolution and that it has happened. The amount of evidence in animal evolution is also evidence to drastic evolution can be. If organisms can evolve to go from sea to land, then is it not even thesible to suggest that a land ape could evolve into a land man.
-
Heh. "Ass" means "donkey", just in case no-one knew that. <_< >_>
Anyways, it's obvious that evolution is not a theory; we know that it happens in the short term (if you don't believe me, look at paintings over the past few hundred years of horses; not absolute evidence, but painters back then weren't bad at drawing horses, domestic horses are bigger now. Or, even, domestic cats, dogs, whatever. If you wanna try it yourself, it's not that hard. Use something with a short lifespan, like fruitfly).
Historically, it's obvious something happened at some time, and evolution is far more credible and has far more evidence for it (fossils, anyone?) than creationism.
-
its a stupid Theory who beliefs oure grand grand grand grand grandgrandgrand pa was a dot.
INFO:http://drdino.com/ (http://drdino.com/)
-
its a stupid Theory who beliefs oure grand grand grand grand grandgrandgrand pa was a dot.
And thank you for the constructive criticism.
Yes, its a theory, but with facts to support it...in comparison to God the creator of the universe has NO facts to back it up at all...ofcourse, the Bible is all the facts people who believe it need.
-
This isn't evolution vs creationism, so I'd be more happy if you guys wouldn't immediatly start arguing about that stuff.
I supposrt evolution, simply because it makes sense. Pure proof hasn't been found, simply because it's a process that takes ages. (of course, through breeding experiments, one can easily conclude genetical traits can be passed on) All the fossils and biological similarities between species have been found and proven though. It's pretty damn silly, that if one sees the similarities in a skeleton structure or a genetical DNA string, between (let's say) a certain dinosaur and a certain bird, to simply say it's a coincidence. Lots of fossils clearly show similarities (and improvements) from which one can conclude that they had the same ancestor.
-
Just a stupid theory created for people who don't want to believe there's a god who created everything.
Kleaver Edit: Stop the useles posts that have no backup information whatsoever.
Hyrule_boy edit: Your edit is useless.
-
General evolution is the most possible theory. It tends towards fact, andf is closer to it than anything else due to an incredibly large sum of what would otherwise be rather impossible (tending more towards impossibility even, than evolution tends towards fact) coincidence.
We do physically change: That cannot be denied, due to the changes in average height over some hundreds of years.
Our world and environments change, and thus we and other creatures must change to survive, though history is full of extinctions (I believe we will die out and something even more influencial than us will eventually come along).
2-3 billion years ago (Though isotope dating has a large range of inaccuracy after 70000 years [or so the professors of the History of Earth at my Uni would say]) there was (or rather is no evidence for anything more than) nothing but unicellular organisms, photosynthesising, withought even a nucleus in their cells.
Rocks 2 billion years old and younger contain eukaryotes, cells with a Nucleus, but basically doing the same as the Prokaryotes before them.
Then, after a while they started to do more interesting things.
700 Million year old rock contains evidence of creatures composed of multiple cells. It would be rather sensible, wouldnt you think, to assume that instead of them just popping into existance, that they actually were an 'evolution' on the creatures before them, and that they combined. It goes on, of course.
Yesterday, i had an exam in which i wrote an essay of the stratigraphical relevance of cephalopods general evolution-like pattern.
You would assume on viewing a shelled ammonite in the Devonian period, that when looking at each step 50 or so million years after that and seeing an increasing septum pattern wave frequency, that there was an evolutionary trend there(<edit: a change which increased their structural integrity>)
To assume otherwise would give you the logical credibilty of someone who goes around saying "That picture you took with your camera. Ok its most probable that its really just a picture you took, but WHAT IF, just because its possible within our limited knowledge, that it wasnt, and was in fact taken in a scale model of this universe made by aliens and transferred here?".
What im saying, is the line between fact and theory is non-existant.
Anything can be misproven by something more convincing, at which point, that is what i woulod believe. For now, ill follow evolution as its the most possible thing: Idealism doesnt come into it either; It does come into other beliefs however, hence i make my choice of belief withought the factor of my own desire at influence.
-
Besides, to all you nay-sayers that are inspired by religious belief: Evolution doesn't rule out the existence of superior beings, that did or did not affect the evolution of mankind. We just don't need them anymore. Just like we don't need other gods to explain thunder. (of course, moral and existensial need is something else...)
-
Can we not watch certain things evolve, like things with a short life span, can't remember what insect it was but there are many generations in one human lifetime, 100ds so we can watch them adapt and so on, small changes etc.
I may be wrong, but I am fairly sure I've seen this on TV or in a science lesson got told about it.
-
I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.
I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.
-
I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.
I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.
How much does something have to change before being a different species?
-
We do physically change: That cannot be denied, due to the changes in average height over some hundreds of years.
That's not sufficient evidence. Change in height is easily attributed to improvements in environmental factors - e.g. diet, healthcare, disease, etc. Not evolution, sorry.
Evolution only works when things die, due to the way the world's been going, in most "civilised" parts of the world, almost everyone lives to breed.
Besides, to all you nay-sayers that are inspired by religious belief: Evolution doesn't rule out the existence of superior beings, that did or did not affect the evolution of mankind. We just don't need them anymore. Just like we don't need other gods to explain thunder. (of course, moral and existensial need is something else...)
Many people believe in both God and evolution. I heard an interesting thing comparing the creationist story to evolutionary history as a metaphor (it was kinda bullshitty, but it kinda worked).
Can we not watch certain things evolve, like things with a short life span, can't remember what insect it was but there are many generations in one human lifetime, 100ds so we can watch them adapt and so on, small changes etc.
I may be wrong, but I am fairly sure I've seen this on TV or in a science lesson got told about it.
Fruitfly. I think my mum used to work with fruitfly evolution/mutation back in her biologist days; because they've got such short lifespans and such simple genetic structures, they adapt genetically very quickly.
I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.
I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.
Evolution is merely the adaptation to environment through the "natural selection" of individuals with advantageous genes, which would, naturally, pass their genes on to their offspring. Skin colour can count as evolution, if it's hereditary, but it can also be merely environmental, if it's say, just a skin tan.
I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.
I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.
How much does something have to change before being a different species?
By definition, two individuals of opposite gender are considered a species if they can produce fertile offspring. Donkeys and horses can produce offspring that are infertile; these are two different species. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring; they are one species. Nice and simple.
-
I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.
I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.
Evolution is adaptation in that the genome changes to adapt to the environment through the generatations. Evolution is therefore adaption. This is not to say that adaptation is necessarily evolution. Adaptation is merely to adapt to an environment or situation. A very simple example testable by anyone reading this is to turn off the lights so that it's dark (if you don'thave really good blinds, this won't work during the daytime). Everything will look pitch black and you'll be practically blind. After a few seconds, depending on how dark it is, you might be able to identify some basic shapes. After a few minutes, your eyes and brain will have adapted to the dark and you can properly interpret your surroundings despite the low light. Less efficiently that in a normal light, but well enough. This is adaptation at work in mere minutes. It's not evolution though. Evolution would occur if you were to live for thousands of years under the Earth in dark caves. Your eyes would change to be similar to those of nocturnal animals in order to see in the dark, and your other senses, such as hearing, would increase in order to compensate for your decrease in vision. At this point you have effectively created a new sort of nocturnal human. This "breed" would be an evolved form of what we perceive as humans.
It's sort of a rectangle/square thing:
A square is necessarily a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
-
I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.
I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.
How much does something have to change before being a different species?
By definition, two individuals of opposite gender are considered a species if they can produce fertile offspring. Donkeys and horses can produce offspring that are infertile; these are two different species. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring; they are one species. Nice and simple.
But wait, in that definition how would things have evolved as it would just be the same species all the time, not new ones from old creatures :-\
-
its a stupid Theory who beliefs oure grand grand grand grand grandgrandgrand pa was a dot.
INFO:http://drdino.com/ (http://drdino.com/)
I think you need to look up the definition of evolution. u__u
I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.
I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.
How much does something have to change before being a different species?
It's considered a different species at the point that the different groups can't reproduce together.
And I've gotta say, most people misunderstand evolution. Evolution isn't the genes changing to adapt tho the environment. Its basically this; There WILL be mutations in births, no matter what. Basically, the mutations that would impede the creatures, will most likely lead to a creatures death. A mutation that helps an animal, will more likely help that creature survive. So it works out that the helpful genes get spread on, while the un-helpful mutations don't work out. Think about that, it makes sense.
I don't think humans will evolve much more, and if we do, it will be very slowly because;
A. We have such a HUGE population, it would take forever for mutations to spread.
B. In our modern world, we've gotten to the point where you can survive and reproduce even with mutations... Meaning not just the good ones will spread :/
-
Finally, I can bring examples out of The Time Machine by HG Wells. In it, the Eloi and the Morlocks are seperate species. They were once human, but overtime changed to the point where they could no longer interbreed, at least evidence is not shown for it. There was probably a time when they could, but as time went by, they could not, they became too different.
So, as a species becomes more seperated from its ancestor and members of its own species, the original species becomes two new species.
Evolution is a change in genes, adaptation, selctionism, etc.
-
I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.
I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.
How much does something have to change before being a different species?
By definition, two individuals of opposite gender are considered a species if they can produce fertile offspring. Donkeys and horses can produce offspring that are infertile; these are two different species. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring; they are one species. Nice and simple.
But wait, in that definition how would things have evolved as it would just be the same species all the time, not new ones from old creatures :-\
It's to do with genetic compatibility; the number and type of chromosomes, etc.
its a stupid Theory who beliefs oure grand grand grand grand grandgrandgrand pa was a dot.
INFO:http://drdino.com/ (http://drdino.com/)
I think you need to look up the definition of evolution. u__u
I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.
I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.
How much does something have to change before being a different species?
It's considered a different species at the point that the different groups can't reproduce together.
Not true. See hybridisation. But true hybrids aren't fertile.
And I've gotta say, most people misunderstand evolution. Evolution isn't the genes changing to adapt tho the environment. Its basically this; There WILL be mutations in births, no matter what. Basically, the mutations that would impede the creatures, will most likely lead to a creatures death. A mutation that helps an animal, will more likely help that creature survive. So it works out that the helpful genes get spread on, while the un-helpful mutations don't work out. Think about that, it makes sense.
I don't think humans will evolve much more, and if we do, it will be very slowly because;
A. We have such a HUGE population, it would take forever for mutations to spread.
B. In our modern world, we've gotten to the point where you can survive and reproduce even with mutations... Meaning not just the good ones will spread :/
Limey, it's not just mutation; yes, mutation is the original cause of "new" genes, but it's the natural tendency towards things with advantageous genes to survive. They don't have to be mutants in themselves for this to happen.
Also, you forget: The human genome is so complicated that any minor mutations often results in death before birth, or shortly after, or significant problems in the person's lifespan.
-
I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.
I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.
How much does something have to change before being a different species?
By definition, two individuals of opposite gender are considered a species if they can produce fertile offspring. Donkeys and horses can produce offspring that are infertile; these are two different species. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring; they are one species. Nice and simple.
But wait, in that definition how would things have evolved as it would just be the same species all the time, not new ones from old creatures :-\
It's to do with genetic compatibility; the number and type of chromosomes, etc.
its a stupid Theory who beliefs oure grand grand grand grand grandgrandgrand pa was a dot.
INFO:http://drdino.com/ (http://drdino.com/)
I think you need to look up the definition of evolution. u__u
I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.
I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.
How much does something have to change before being a different species?
It's considered a different species at the point that the different groups can't reproduce together.
Not true. See hybridisation. But true hybrids aren't fertile.
And I've gotta say, most people misunderstand evolution. Evolution isn't the genes changing to adapt tho the environment. Its basically this; There WILL be mutations in births, no matter what. Basically, the mutations that would impede the creatures, will most likely lead to a creatures death. A mutation that helps an animal, will more likely help that creature survive. So it works out that the helpful genes get spread on, while the un-helpful mutations don't work out. Think about that, it makes sense.
I don't think humans will evolve much more, and if we do, it will be very slowly because;
A. We have such a HUGE population, it would take forever for mutations to spread.
B. In our modern world, we've gotten to the point where you can survive and reproduce even with mutations... Meaning not just the good ones will spread :/
Limey, it's not just mutation; yes, mutation is the original cause of "new" genes, but it's the natural tendency towards things with advantageous genes to survive. They don't have to be mutants in themselves for this to happen.
Also, you forget: The human genome is so complicated that any minor mutations often results in death before birth, or shortly after, or significant problems in the person's lifespan.
It really is just mutations. For example, being taller was an advantage for human beings (looking stronger/bigger against predators, easier walking with longer legs, etc), right? (I'm actually talking about human ancestors here ;) ), So, a short hominid born would have a much smaller chance of surviving and mating. A larger one would have a slightly better chance of survival. Also, some changes sexually attract others.
-
Limey, you are describing selectionism. That is not to say that mutation hasn't affected the course of human history though.
The taller ones prospered because they had a greater chance of survival in their environment. If the environment is different, the short may even prosper.
Mutation has aided human development though. During the Bubonic plague, humans in Europe with the D32 mutation in their white blood cells were not likely to die or be affected by the disease. Thus, they had a greater chance of survival. A population in Africa has bird-like feet with two toes on a foot, but that is just a mutation. The list goes on. The point is, evolution is not only mutation, but mutation helps.
-
Yeah, what I was describing is called 'Natural Seletction'. And it IS the definition of evolution basically...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution
# Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
or technically Evolution is the 'change caused by natural selection' ;)
-
When two groups of the same species change and no longer are compatible with eath other, that is not selectionism, but it is isolationism. The two seperated groups cannot breed, so in some sense the amount of selection is decreased, but as time goes by, the two stray even further apart genetically and become unlike what was once their species. The selectionism occurs in the two newfound groups seperately, and may even be the reason for the start of the isolationism, but isolationism in itself is different from natural selection. The strong may survive, but sometimes the weak for lack of a better word also live on as well.
-
When two groups of the same species change and no longer are compatible with eath other, that is not selectionism, but it is isolationism. The two seperated groups cannot breed, so in some sense the amount of selection is decreased, but as time goes by, the two stray even further apart genetically and become unlike what was once their species. The selectionism occurs in the two newfound groups seperately, and may even be the reason for the start of the isolationism, but isolationism in itself is different from natural selection. The strong may survive, but sometimes the weak for lack of a better word also live on as well.
I wasn't talking about isolationism O__o
-
You were saying that natural selection was the definition of evolution, and while that is true, isolationism is the expansion of that definition. Isolationism is not really natural selection, and yet it is still evolution.
-
Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
awwk.
We find artifacts and art created by something in times in which only evidence of something different from us, but similar, exist ie: possible ancestors of ourselves was living (The oldest discoveries are around 20-30 000 years if i remmember correctly). Wether we could reproduce with an incarnation of the things only known as skeletons to us today, i dont really know lol. Maybe someone here could search and find out what is believed or proven with this. There are seperate classifications for such things.
So, say hypothetically that they whom produced the evidence of their own free, creative thought were a different species from us.
It makes sense to me that with us being quite unique in our ability to think freely, that this different species at a different time, when we were not alive, doing that same thing which we, uniquely do, were what we were, then. Hence for us to become a different species now, we would have to have evolved.
We do physically change: That cannot be denied, due to the changes in average height over some hundreds of years.
That's not sufficient evidence. Change in height is easily attributed to improvements in environmental factors - e.g. diet, healthcare, disease, etc. Not evolution, sorry.
And i said 'we do physically change', not 'we do evolve'.
-
Until a more logical theory comes along (which I doubt will happen), I say fact.
-
I find the topic title humor inducing, because Evolution by all means is called the Theory of Evolution. So, yes, it is a theory. And you really can't prove anything definately with science anyway, so it's not a fact.
-
I find the topic title humor inducing, because Evolution by all means is called the Theory of Evolution. So, yes, it is a theory. And you really can't prove anything definately with science anyway, so it's not a fact.
Evolution is in some cases proven, therefore it exists and is not a theory (i.e. differenciation and similarities of species). The reason it is still called a theory is that the religious majority do not want science stepping in for God, even though Darwin himself was a devout Christian man who believed in God. Another reason that it is left "theory" is that media resources often refer to Darwin's research which at that time was called generalized as the theory of evolution because of over-zealous religionists. Now, it is accepted as more than a theory, but is left called that due to the fact that it is still controversial to anyone without an open mind.
DNA testing solves crimes by proving that a person's DNA was there. The only case DNA wouldn't work is if it were fractured or incomplete or the suspects in the case were twins. Even then though, finger prints would solve the crime because even twins finger prints are different.
-
The reason it is still called a theory is that the religious majority do not want science stepping in for God
You don't understand much about religion, do you?
You see, God didn't neccessarily create the grizzly bear, the polar bear, it could be that He just created the bear... or even *gasp* it could have evolved from another form of life! Just because God created us doesn't mean that natural selection isn't real. As for the "theory of evolution", I'd like to see ANYONE prove it. Natural selection and the process of evolution is a fact. The "theory of evolution" is merely a theory.
-
I find the topic title humor inducing, because Evolution by all means is called the Theory of Evolution. So, yes, it is a theory. And you really can't prove anything definately with science anyway, so it's not a fact.
Evolution is in some cases proven, therefore it exists and is not a theory (i.e. differenciation and similarities of species). The reason it is still called a theory is that the religious majority do not want science stepping in for God, even though Darwin himself was a devout Christian man who believed in God. Another reason that it is left "theory" is that media resources often refer to Darwin's research which at that time was called generalized as the theory of evolution because of over-zealous religionists. Now, it is accepted as more than a theory, but is left called that due to the fact that it is still controversial to anyone without an open mind.
DNA testing solves crimes by proving that a person's DNA was there. The only case DNA wouldn't work is if it were fractured or incomplete or the suspects in the case were twins. Even then though, finger prints would solve the crime because even twins finger prints are different.
Do you have ANY idea what a scientific theory is? It differs from the ordinary use of the term 'theory'. And no science can be proven, otherwise it would be fact, not science.
-
Of course it's just a theory. You can't really define much as fact... A lot of things we teach in schools are theories.
Personally, I think that schools should teach multiple theories, really. Like intelligent design AND evolution.
-
Of course it's just a theory. You can't really define much as fact... A lot of things we teach in schools are theories.
Personally, I think that schools should teach multiple theories, really. Like intelligent design AND evolution.
I was taught evolution in school, and I have absolutely no problem with it. Intelligent design apparently can't be because "seperation of church and state" <_<
But oh well, we have church for religion, no? :)
-
@2awesome4apossum: I was not talking about Intelligent Design was I. I know about religion too, since most athiests are not raised athiest, they often have to find their own path. So, I do know a lot about Christianity.
@Comrade Kesha: Sciences can be proven. Why would schools teach all theory? That is stupid and misunderstood. While no one can visibly see a stationary atom due to the energy of the photon hitting the atom and thus having it move, it is still predicted to have shape that fits a mathmatical model. Science does not necessarily be seen, but it can be reasonably inferred. It is not like someone is just saying that something is a certain way without backing it up.
@ Limey: A lot of schools do not teach evolution on the curriculum because it offends deeply religious people. It is something that can be reasonably inferred and even though most schools do not teach ape to man, it is still rejected. Funny how humanity fears change of something it once hold true and funny how humanity fears what it was! Humanity now is becoming even more anti-religious (people are not devout) and humanity is becoming worse than it was or thinks it was eons ago (If you tell an obese person that they are derived from a lesser form they fail to see themselves as decrepid and will view the lesser form as more of a disgusting figure; not all obese people, but one obviously would think that, I am pretty sure that everyone can think of at least one person who is like that)
...I have fake Internet money on the fact that a few people thought of me by that last comment even though they do not know me.
-
@2awesome4apossum: I was not talking about Intelligent Design was I.
I get a very different idea judging by your first post, and the post I quoted from (about why evolution is a theory that Christians dispute... you got your reasoning for that wrong ;)).
-
@Comrade Kesha: Sciences can be proven. Why would schools teach all theory? That is stupid and misunderstood. While no one can visibly see a stationary atom due to the energy of the photon hitting the atom and thus having it move, it is still predicted to have shape that fits a mathmatical model. Science does not necessarily be seen, but it can be reasonably inferred. It is not like someone is just saying that something is a certain way without backing it up.
Once again, do you know what a scientific theory is?
Look it up before respoding to me.
-
Most science is still theoretical. There is still a vast amount about even the atom we don't know for sure. We know what happens under certain conditions and, as you said, the model can reasonably infered based on these observations. However, that does not mean it has been proven. It is merely the most likely theory and is assumed to be true. Our model is fairly recent. For a long time people have been coming up with models of atoms, and each time they were different and more advanced. I remember the "plum pudding" model had all of the sub-atomic particles held within an atom. Based on the information they had, that model worked perfectly. As far as they were concerned, it was the thruth about the atom. Then, as time went by and more experiments were performed, we gained new information and the model of the atom underwent different changes up until what we have today. With practically any scientific theory, even one that's taught in school, there could be a random breakthrough that changes what we know about the universe. Until then,the best theory is taught. Scientists know that very little is 100% certain, and that's actually why there are those who try and disprove theories. They do know that what we have currently works for our purposes though, so they state that as "fact".
A theory is not certain and is very hard to prove for sure. However, if another theory crops up it is much easier to disprove one than it is to prove the other. Almost infinitely easier since true proof is almost impossible in most cases.
-
@2awesome4apossum: I was not talking about Intelligent Design was I.
I get a very different idea judging by your first post, and the post I quoted from (about why evolution is a theory that Christians dispute... you got your reasoning for that wrong ;)).
@2awesome4apossum:
My first post is not about Intelligent Design. It refutes Creationism because of how Creationism says that various organisms were created seperately. Thus, the grizzly and polar bear, according to early Creationists, were not from the same ancestor, but were always grizzly and polar bears since the beginning of time when God created them. Thus, a Creationist views man as an unchanged being. However, back to the bears, since they are different, and yet they can reproduce offspring even though it is infertile, suggests that they are compatible. Knowing the life cycles of orgamisms, it is improbable to believe that an organism would change itself in less than let us say twenty years to accomodate itself to reproduce with a different organism. A Creationist would have to agree on some extent that the bears had to have descended from a lesser organism to be able to at least breed.
@Comrade Kesha:
While a scientific theory is not fully known to be true, humankind cannot be expected to fully know itself because it is still itself. A scientific theory does have basis on reason and is often proven to an extent my experiments and observations.
So, a scientific theory is an explanation for a result of an experiment or a conclusion based upon observation that has been proven to an extent, which is testing many times, and yet remains theory because humankind does not have omnipresent understanding.
@Alex2539:
Exactly what I am trying to say. A theory today, mind you, is more accurate than the theories of old. The technology now permits humanity to know more, so less has to be inferred.
-
Thus, the grizzly and polar bear, according to early Creationists, were not from the same ancestor, but were always grizzly and polar bears since the beginning of time when God created them.
According to whom? Certainly not any creationist I know.
-
That is why I said early creationists. I cannot find the source now, but in a text about Darwin, there was a passage about birds, I think finches. People at his time believed that some African finch and some other finch were not related and that they existed in their forms since the beginning of time, set in stone for eternity until extinction. Two of the finches he studied were similar in forms and diets, but I am not sure if he tried to breed them.
I did say early Creationists, so I doubt you would know any unless you lived a long time ago. Modern creationists now have some science elements in their beliefs because they are now viewing things from a logical angle.
My main thing against Creationism is that how could humanity remain its form and likeness. If we were like we are now, then why didn't we change? Other organisms did and have? Just look at some elephants. Even on a macroscopic scale, some have undergone tuck loss in a short period of time observable by man. I am really surprised the Creationists did not go the route of saying that apes and monkies were a form of sinning humans that devolved into lessr devil-like forms. That would even more sense. In other words, if humanity descended from apes, is not it also possible for apes to have come from humans? I guess that nobody knows that either.
-
In other words, if humanity descended from apes, is not it also possible for apes to have come from humans? I guess that nobody knows that either.
Simple explanation; apes and humans both had a common ancestor.
Change in height is easily attributed to improvements in environmental factors - e.g. diet, healthcare, disease, etc. Not evolution, sorry.
No, height is hereditary.
The human genome is so complicated that any minor mutations often results in death before birth, or shortly after, or significant problems in the person's lifespan.
Actually, most mutations are neutral.
I find the topic title humor inducing, because Evolution by all means is called the Theory of Evolution. So, yes, it is a theory. And you really can't prove anything definately with science anyway, so it's not a fact.
It's a theory and a fact. Fact and theory have different connotations in science terms. Gravity is a theory, too; but I don't see you gluing your feet to the floor.
Intellegent design should NEVER be taught in a science class.
[MOD_EDIT]Try not to double post.
-
Change in height is easily attributed to improvements in environmental factors - e.g. diet, healthcare, disease, etc. Not evolution, sorry.
No, height is hereditary.
No maximum height is hereditary, but it is influenced by your diet and diseases etc.
-
Change in height is easily attributed to improvements in environmental factors - e.g. diet, healthcare, disease, etc. Not evolution, sorry.
No, height is hereditary.
No maximum height is hereditary, but it is influenced by your diet and diseases etc.
even so, the gene for height is still passed on regardless.
-
In other words, if humanity descended from apes, is not it also possible for apes to have come from humans? I guess that nobody knows that either.
Simple explanation; apes and humans both had a common ancestor.
I do believe that they have a common ancestor; I was trying to propose a point. What my post was saying is that it would have been more thesible for mankind to to say that apes were degenerate man, there being racism and hatred in the world. For a long time, Africans and Native Americans were viewed as subhuman because they did not fit the "white standard". For Charles Darwin, a white man, to say that all of humanity, including whites, came from a lesser species not only is radical on a religious level, but on a social level as well.
My other posts and the one that precedes this one show that a common ancestor is not only thesible, but is the most probable.
Yes, height like intelligence is merely hereditary potential. The amount of that potential that is realized more often than not is less.
-
Intellegent design should NEVER be taught in a science class.
Agreed.
I took a class on psychology this year in school, and theres a term for why religeous people came up with that theory and refuse to believe evolution even though theres as much evidence support it as there is to disprove intelligent design, and I have yet to see any true evidence to support Intelligent design. I've searched for it, and just couldn't find it, it all seems to based on how unlikely it is that things would develop the way they have, or that we haven't found some of the fossils to perfectly link humans to their ancestors yet.
It is just a theory right now since there is really no way to design an experiment, and reproduce it, but I believe it is fact because there are too many different species out there that are very similar to each other.
Not to mention, where does a platypus fit into intelligent design? Its furry, has a duck-like bill, and a beaver-like tail, lives in burrows that it digs, is one of only three species of mammals that lay eggs, and the males even have poisonous spurs on thier legs! :D
-
Change in height is easily attributed to improvements in environmental factors - e.g. diet, healthcare, disease, etc. Not evolution, sorry.
No, height is hereditary.
Nope, not exactly. Genetics are a factor in determining height, but environment is a much bigger factor.
Especially when you're referring to the apparent change in humans in the past hundred years; a few hundred years is not enough to explain significant change due to evolution; changes in environment is a much bigger factor then than genetics.
Besides. Height is sometimes more hormonal than genetical: There was a man who was a dwarf for most of his life; then, due to a sudden hormal change, he grew a lot in a very short space of time, to become a giant within a few years. This may have been genetical, but you could still, in theory, give a dwarf a massive amount of hormone injections to make them grow a lot.
The human genome is so complicated that any minor mutations often results in death before birth, or shortly after, or significant problems in the person's lifespan.
Actually, most mutations are neutral.
Not in humans. Very, very minor ones may be, but most mutations present in sex cells (and, thenceforth, a foetus) cause significant problems; humans are very complex organisms, and most of the genetic structure is essential to survival. You'd be surprised how very minor mutations have massive ramifications.
I find the topic title humor inducing, because Evolution by all means is called the Theory of Evolution. So, yes, it is a theory. And you really can't prove anything definately with science anyway, so it's not a fact.
It's a theory and a fact. Fact and theory have different connotations in science terms. Gravity is a theory, too; but I don't see you gluing your feet to the floor.
If science can never be called fact, then nothing can ever be called fact. We know gravity exists; if there is no such force, then there is no explaination for... almost everything that's ever happened, and continues to happen.
Intellegent design should NEVER be taught in a science class.
Not neccesarily. If there was significant evidence besides religious belief for it, then it should. However, at the present time, that evidence is severely lacking.
EDIT:
Not to mention, where does a platypus fit into intelligent design? Its furry, has a duck-like bill, and a beaver-like tail, lives in burrows that it digs, is one of only three species of mammals that lay eggs, and the males even have poisonous spurs on thier legs! :D
That actually makes more sense WITH intelligent design. :P
Simple: God was bored. =D
-
Not in humans. Very, very minor ones may be, but most mutations present in sex cells (and, thenceforth, a foetus) cause significant problems; humans are very complex organisms, and most of the genetic structure is essential to survival. You'd be surprised how very minor mutations have massive ramifications.
Thank you for specifying gametes. But not all mutations are negative; there are mutations that allow you to become resistant to certian diseases, etc.
If science can never be called fact, then nothing can ever be called fact.
A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final, because another piece of evidence could come along and prove the fact wrong)
We know gravity exists; if there is no such force, then there is no explaination for... almost everything that's ever happened, and continues to happen.
The same with evolution; if there is no such process, then there is no explaination for... almost everything that's ever happened, and continues to happen.
Not to mention, where does a platypus fit into intelligent design? Its furry, has a duck-like bill, and a beaver-like tail, lives in burrows that it digs, is one of only three species of mammals that lay eggs, and the males even have poisonous spurs on thier legs!
Whereas there's an easy explanation with evolution; the platypus still retained some of its reptile-like characteristics while it evolved with some mammalian characteristics.
-
Evolution is a scientific theory that is supported by a large amount of scientific and archeological evidence. Darwin's finches are just one example. Even humans themselves are good examples. Just look at the difference in appearance (skin color, hair, etc.), which is often attributed to their environement. Simply put, the humans of that regions adapted to survive: such as Africans, whose dark skin tones provide protection from sun burns.
I think that anyone who rejects evolution is merely blinded by faith.
-
Didnt read through all the pages...to long xD Only read like 2 first posts...
I dont know what to think, me and my friends were actually just talkin about this...like I mean....If man evolved from apes and so on...Why are there still apes and stuff? I dont get it, If we evolved from them, should they be men/women to? I really dont...just like the theroy that dolphins evolved from big wolf-like creatures...and somthin else in that strange range of things...
-
Thought I'd just throw in another quick piece of evidence for evolution:
take a look at viruses and bacteria, especially the cold and the flu. It seems that every year (and sometimes a few times a year) a new form of the cold and the flu is out there. But why? Are there severaly forms just flying around the world? No. When our body is attacked by these common illnesses, it learns how to effectively fight it, making itself immune to it. So then how do we get the cold/flu again? Because the virus itself rapidly evolves in order to infect your system, because that is how it survives. All viruses that we are immune to die out, and eventually only those that can infect us still exist. This is natural selection, and it is nothing short of ignorance to overlook such an obvious and common example of evolution. This is also the reason why new vaccines are constantly created for the same diseases.
-
Didnt read through all the pages...to long xD Only read like 2 first posts...
If man evolved from apes and so on...Why are there still apes and stuff?
Humans and apes decended from a common ancestor; It's like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?"
-
I think that anyone who rejects evolution is merely blinded by faith.
ROFL!
It'd be even funnier if I didn't think you were joking. ^_^
@ those who don't know what I'm talking about. Let's take the most basic definition of faith "a belief in something that's true", and you'll see why that's such a funny oxymoron.
Even our beloved Dictionary.com has a similar definition (although I'd point out Webster to anyone who has a book at home):
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Of course evolution's fact! It's undisputed! However, I'd like to point out that many non-Christians are also very skeptical about the monkey to human thing... <_<;;
It's quite a ridiculous theory, really... especially when we have an entirely different level of intellegent as to other animals. All you science people should know what I'm talking about ;)
-
2a4a, it's ridiculous to think anything powerful enough to create life as it is could be driven by an intelligence. Especially when the design of a lot of living things has certaintly been a lot less than intelligent.
Evolution makes a lot more sense. What a lot of people fail to relise is the MASSIVE time frame involved. Think about your whole life. Now, make that 100,000 times longer, and you're thinking the time scale for relatively minor changes within a complicated species, like "higher" primates.
btw, to the comment about "why are there still monkeys?" - it's obvious. Humans are around because they survived more, but that doesn't mean the "unevolved" ones didn't survive, or even didn't evolve themselves in subtler ways.
-
2a4a, it's ridiculous to think anything powerful enough to create life as it is could be driven by an intelligence. Especially when the design of a lot of living things has certaintly been a lot less than intelligent.
You know what's REALLY ridiculous? With the few thousand years that we've had the written record we've figured out SO MUCH about genetics, we can even clone tomatoes! Our knowledge of science has progressed SO much! We can do all sorts of things, we're even developing fuel cells powered by hydrogen!
Are you saying that we're at our limit of knowledge? Are you saying that there couldn't be an intelligent being smarter than us out there?
Is it just me or are you the one with the extremist position?
-
It's incredibly unlikely. To believe in it now seems preposterous. It's like teaching kids about an ancient civilisation. It doesn't matter whether it ever did exist or not - without proper evidence for it to exist, it might as well not have.
Nevertheless, the intelligent design/creation stories propose ridiculous levels of intervention in a form of which there is no evidence, and no known way of being able to do it in the least.
Besides, cloning tomatoes isn't genetics; farmers have been doing that for a long, long time. It's actually rather simple; you take a living sample of the plant, put it in soil and water, and it'll grow. Depending on the sample, it might help a lot to use hormones, but that's hardly necessary.
And making hydrogen power cells is something quite different to "intelligently designing" life. Hydrogen combustion is a very simple process, evident frequently. Designing a whole living thing from the ground up via an intelligence isn't.
-
Nevertheless, the intelligent design/creation stories propose ridiculous levels of intervention in a form of which there is no evidence, and no known way of being able to do it in the least.
Give me an example.
It's incredibly unlikely. To believe in it now seems preposterous. It's like teaching kids about an ancient civilisation. It doesn't matter whether it ever did exist or not - without proper evidence for it to exist, it might as well not have.
You're the one who's ruling out the possibility entirely.
And making hydrogen power cells is something quite different to "intelligently designing" life. Hydrogen combustion is a very simple process, evident frequently. Designing a whole living thing from the ground up via an intelligence isn't.
And who says "that's the way it is"?
-
Are you saying that we're at our limit of knowledge? Are you saying that there couldn't be an intelligent being smarter than us out there?
If there are and they created us, where are they now, and more importantly, where would they have come from?
-
Are you saying that we're at our limit of knowledge? Are you saying that there couldn't be an intelligent being smarter than us out there?
If there are and they created us, where are they now, and more importantly, where would they have come from?
Where did the Universe and matter itself come from?
-
Are you saying that we're at our limit of knowledge? Are you saying that there couldn't be an intelligent being smarter than us out there?
If there are and they created us, where are they now, and more importantly, where would they have come from?
Where did the Universe and matter itself come from?
1. Does it really matter?
2. How do you know it 'came from' anywhere? I Guess the idea of things not being created at some point, and infinite time is a hard thing to grasp, but it is possible.
-
Are you saying that we're at our limit of knowledge? Are you saying that there couldn't be an intelligent being smarter than us out there?
If there are and they created us, where are they now, and more importantly, where would they have come from?
Where did the Universe and matter itself come from?
1. Does it really matter?
2. How do you know it 'came from' anywhere? I Guess the idea of things not being created at some point, and infinite time is a hard thing to grasp, but it is possible.
My point exactly.
-
Are you saying that we're at our limit of knowledge? Are you saying that there couldn't be an intelligent being smarter than us out there?
If there are and they created us, where are they now, and more importantly, where would they have come from?
Where did the Universe and matter itself come from?
1. Does it really matter?
2. How do you know it 'came from' anywhere? I Guess the idea of things not being created at some point, and infinite time is a hard thing to grasp, but it is possible.
My point exactly.
No, it wasn't your point; a little ways up you were saying how everything needed to be created. If you agree that the universe is eternal, and didn't need causation, then it would negate the need for a god.
Let's take the most basic definition of faith "a belief in something that's true", and you'll see why that's such a funny oxymoron.
that's not the definition of faith..
Even our beloved Dictionary.com has a similar definition (although I'd point out Webster to anyone who has a book at home):
Quote
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
The dictionary.com definition is saying that faith is the belief (note: opinion) that a person idea or thing is true, not believing in something because it's true.
Let's look at the second definition of faith on Dictionary.com:
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Faith is the belief (note: opinion) that something is true; something like saying that you have faith that leprechauns exist.
Faith -> Opinion =/= Fact
However, I'd like to point out that many non-Christians are also very skeptical about the monkey to human thing... <_<;;
..and?
It's quite a ridiculous theory, really...
It's a quite useful theory, really; it's the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides.
especially when we have an entirely different level of intellegent as to other animals. All you science people should know what I'm talking about
What the hell are you talking about? It's quite sound, actually; we have higher brain functions because we were fortunate enough to evolve a better nervous system.
-
Are you saying that we're at our limit of knowledge? Are you saying that there couldn't be an intelligent being smarter than us out there?
If there are and they created us, where are they now, and more importantly, where would they have come from?
Where did the Universe and matter itself come from?
Where the universe came from doesn't matter so much - we know it came from SOMEWHERE, and we know it suddenly started to expand around 15 billion years ago. It's only the human idea that everything needs a beginning, middle and end that creates problems with this.
God, on the other hand... if there is/was a God, where did HE come from? Where is He now? Where did He got the power to create everything and design life? THAT is far less logical.
-
No, it wasn't your point; a little ways up you were saying how everything needed to be created.
When? Where? And thanks for pointing out that I don't know what my own opinion is ^_^
If you agree that the universe is eternal, and didn't need causation, then it would negate the need for a god.
Not neccessarily. Just because the universe may have always existed doesn't mean that WE did. O.o
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
That doesn't mean that it can be made up. Belief is not mere opinion. If I were you, I would have used the definition that talks about Christianity... because that second definition doesn't "counter" the first. It's merely an alternate way of looking at it. I can believe in something that's true, no?
And it obviously is the definition of faith. Read: first definition... most commonly used.
..and?
It's not just Christian-extremists that believe this. That's obviously what I'm saying...
What the hell are you talking about? It's quite sound, actually; we have higher brain functions because we were fortunate enough to evolve a better nervous system.
Thanks for swearing at me! w00t!
You sir = awesome. And very mature for using swearwords ^_^
Anyhow, I can see what you're saying... although I think we're too complex for that. And why monkeys? We might share 90-something percent of DNA with them, but until it's 99%, I don't think it's very significant. DNA's awfully inclusive...
It's a quite useful theory, really; it's the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides.
Well, obviously natural selection is a fact. Never denied that.
Where the universe came from doesn't matter so much - we know it came from SOMEWHERE, and we know it suddenly started to expand around 15 billion years ago. It's only the human idea that everything needs a beginning, middle and end that creates problems with this.
How can something come from nothing?
God, on the other hand... if there is/was a God, where did HE come from? Where is He now? Where did He got the power to create everything and design life? THAT is far less logical.
Perhaps much like the universe, He has always existed?
-
There has never been proof of a transitional species (something turning into something else). I do believe in microevolution (adaptation) and change over time, but I do not believe in macroevolution (a species changing into another species) and neither did Darwin. A lot of scientists have realised that for evolution to be a viable 'fact' they have to show transitional species and yet in the fossil records there are none... not one.
On topic though, in Creationism, humans were created in God's image, so they are in that sense to be considered perfect.
There is something we believe in called the FALL of man, where he was cast from a perfect existence into an imperfect existence, but let's not make this a religious debate.
My point is that there is no link between any species to any other species that is why they call it "The Missing Link"...
-
There has never been proof of a transitional species (something turning into something else). I do believe in microevolution (adaptation) and change over time, but I do not believe in macroevolution (a species changing into another species) and neither did Darwin. A lot of scientists have realised that for evolution to be a viable 'fact' they have to show transitional species and yet in the fossil records there are none... not one.
Well then how were new species formed? And please don't use god as an answer.
-
Not neccessarily. Just because the universe may have always existed doesn't mean that WE did. O.o
Are we still talking about the same thing? what does that have to do with how a zero-cause universe doesn't need a god?
That doesn't mean that it can be made up. Belief is not mere opinion. If I were you, I would have used the definition that talks about Christianity... because that second definition doesn't "counter" the first. It's merely an alternate way of looking at it. I can believe in something that's true, no?
And it obviously is the definition of faith. Read: first definition... most commonly used.
could you give me a link to all these definitions you're using?
how are we supposed to debate this when we can't find a solid definition from a reputable source?
Thanks for swearing at me! w00t!
You sir = awesome. And very mature for using swearwords ^_^
Hell is a swear word now? News to me. <_<
Perhaps much like the universe, He has always existed?
that doesn't explain where he got his powers from.
-
I won't use 'God' as an answer. I believe in 'types' as there are types of animals which I consider species... Dog (which includes Chihuahuas and Mastiffs) they are still Dogs even though they are very disimilar. There are Cats (from the domestic house cat to the large Jungle cats like a Tiger) they are still Cats. I don't believe that a Dog will ever turn into a Cat. And I do not believe that an Ape turned into a Man either.
-
I won't use 'God' as an answer. I believe in 'types' as there are types of animals which I consider species... Dog (which includes Chihuahuas and Mastiffs) they are still Dogs even though they are very disimilar. There are Cats (from the domestic house cat to the large Jungle cats like a Tiger) they are still Cats. I don't believe that a Dog will ever turn into a Cat. And I do not believe that an Ape turned into a Man either.
Well, dogs didn't exist in dinosaur times, how did they come to exist today? Evolution is the only scientifically backed up theory as far as I know. (I'm not saying evolution is fact btw)
-
I won't use 'God' as an answer. I believe in 'types' as there are types of animals which I consider species... Dog (which includes Chihuahuas and Mastiffs) they are still Dogs even though they are very disimilar. There are Cats (from the domestic house cat to the large Jungle cats like a Tiger) they are still Cats. I don't believe that a Dog will ever turn into a Cat. And I do not believe that an Ape turned into a Man either.
I've seen something very similar to this in a book one time. It was a book from Jehovah's witnesses about how evolution is wrong.
-
Well, dogs didn't exist in dinosaur times, how did they come to exist today? Evolution is the only scientifically backed up theory as far as I know. (I'm not saying evolution is fact btw)
How do you know that Dog's and even humans did not exists in the 'Dinosaur Times'? Were you there, was any scientist there to observe?
I'm not discounting adaptation over many years, I am discounting the macroevolutionary 'THEORY'. But yes, I do believe in God.
-
Well, dogs didn't exist in dinosaur times, how did they come to exist today? Evolution is the only scientifically backed up theory as far as I know. (I'm not saying evolution is fact btw)
How do you know that Dog's and even humans did not exists in the 'Dinosaur Times'? Were you there, was any scientist there to observe?
I'm not discounting adaptation over many years, I am discounting the macroevolutionary 'THEORY'. But yes, I do believe in God.
I do too, but I also believe in macroevolution.
-
Well, dogs didn't exist in dinosaur times, how did they come to exist today? Evolution is the only scientifically backed up theory as far as I know. (I'm not saying evolution is fact btw)
How do you know that Dog's and even humans did not exists in the 'Dinosaur Times'? Were you there, was any scientist there to observe?
I'm not discounting adaptation over many years, I am discounting the macroevolutionary 'THEORY'. But yes, I do believe in God.
I do too, but I also believe in macroevolution.
Do you believe the bible though? I can understand easily beliving in a god; But the established religions just seem too unrealistic to me.
TRM, I'll respond to you once I get some sources ;)
-
Well, dogs didn't exist in dinosaur times, how did they come to exist today? Evolution is the only scientifically backed up theory as far as I know. (I'm not saying evolution is fact btw)
How do you know that Dog's and even humans did not exists in the 'Dinosaur Times'? Were you there, was any scientist there to observe?
I'm not discounting adaptation over many years, I am discounting the macroevolutionary 'THEORY'. But yes, I do believe in God.
I do too, but I also believe in macroevolution.
Do you believe the bible though? I can understand easily beliving in a god; But the established religions just seem too unrealistic to me.
TRM, I'll respond to you once I get some sources ;)
Of course I believe in the Bible, but many thing in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. Something in the Bible could be a metaphor for something else.
-
In more complex species, macroevolution is not common and nor should it be. There may be some cases, but overall, it is something that is hard to accomplish.
On the microscopic level though, macroevolution does occur more frequently, i.e. transduction. When a virus, typically a bacteriophage, comes into contact with a host bacterial cell, it inserts its DNA in order to "take over the factory" of the bacterial cell. Sometimes, however, some of the bacterial DNA are packaged into the bacteriophage viron. When the new viruses leave the host cell, they carry this DNA fragment with them. When they come in contact with a new bacterium, the bacterial fragment may enter the new bacteria hosts DNA and even harmonize with it. This creates a new bacterium. While some may view this as long distance reproduction, it is not true reproduction. It is some genes of the bacterium, but not nearly enough to make a complete new one. Since the viral parts that transmitted the DNA fragment are not living and were created in the bacterial cell itself, they can be somewhat viewed as the bacteria's own, but not fully.
Bacteria also macroevolve in another way.
Bacteria, as asexual organisms, inherit an identical copy of their parent's genes (i.e. are clonal). All bacteria, however, have the ability to evolve and change their genetic material, either through mutation or genetic recombination. Mutation occurs as a result of errors made during the replication of a gene and most often gradual. It occurs naturally and as a result of the presence of mutagens. Some bacteria can increase the rate of mutation during DNA replication as a response to stress. (Wikipedia)
-
How do you know that Dog's and even humans did not exists in the 'Dinosaur Times'?
because there are no traces of human and dog fossils in the dinosaur's fossil layer.
Were you there, was any scientist there to observe?
If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed. Which is why we have to rely on natural evidence (ie: fossils, etc.) in order to make our theories.
-
I say fact..i'm not reading through 6 pages, so excuse me if anything has been said already.
1. we've found fossils of animals that have shown evolution of apes to humans
2. If there was no evolution, everything would eventually die out. Why? Because everything would be the same. Therefore, diseases and climate changes would kill off all of a specific species. Evolution allows differences in species, which have different immunities and such. It's like the Pilgrims and the Natives. The Pilgrims brought over illnesses that the Natives weren't immune too. They were all human, but were different.
-
If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed
Why do you keep bringing religion into this debate... this debate was not "Evolution vs Creation", it was "Evolution Fact or Theory"... Stick with what you know swiftu.
-
If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed
Why do you keep bringing religion into this debate... this debate was not "Evolution vs Creation", it was "Evolution Fact or Theory"... Stick with what you know swiftu.
What Shiftu was was saying could not have been clearer. Trying to disprove evolution with a religious concept does not work. It is not even like he was the first to bring religion into this debate, and not that it mattered, since it would have inevitably shown up anyway.
I do not know about you, but having a 98% genetic similarity which a chimpanzee could not be just a coincidence. This scientifically backed-up claim suggests a few things. Either:
1) The primate was God's mistake or prototype human that he forgot "get rid of".
2) Man descended from primate, and this accounts for the similarity.
3) Apes descended from man, and this shows de-evolution.
4) A universal fluke occured that not only is strangely similar, but overly complicated in the way that it happened.
Option 1 contradicts itself because this God is omniconscious. He knows everything. How could he make a mistake?
Option 2 shows the theory of ape to man evolution, a pretty stable explanation
Optoin 3 somewhat supports Creationism, but also shows a form of evolution. If man could go from man to ape, then why not in reverse?
Option 4 is just a random universal oddity that could explain it if you lack a better understanding.
-
In fact the human and a grain of wheat share about 27% of the same DNA structure - the earthworm far more.
For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man
In reality, the 98 % similarity between human and chimpanzee genes, which now and then enters the agenda, is a propaganda-oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and the chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.
However there are about one hundred thousand genes, and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins.
-
In fact the human and a grain of wheat share about 27% of the same DNA structure - the earthworm far more.
You know that is in DNA structure alone. The fact that humanity and the earthworm share more of a DNA match only further supports evolution. Earthworms were some of the first creatures to develop and be visible by today's macroscopic standards. They developed a primitive digestive system and even had blood pumps that were the precursor to hearts.
The similarities with wheat is mainly due to most if not all organisms having the DNA components of A T C and G. Since the grain of wheat is smaller and thus it has less genetic code, it would make it easy for the simple wheat plant to have what seemed like a big similarity to a human.
However, humans and primates do share a lot of behavior and physical features that cannot be ignored. Apes use tools too, are they starting to develop some intelligence? Certainly, the dumb ape who knows sign language is a stupid animal, right? The similarities are so compelling that even a DNA match of 75% would be enough to establish some link.
-
Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes in man.Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic used by evolutionists were valid, then man would have an even closer relative than the chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46
These examples confirm that the concept of genetic similarity does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. This is because the genetic similarities are not in line with the alleged evolutionary schemes, and on the contrary, yield completely opposite results.
NOW SOME OF MY OWN WORDS:
Where is this 98% idea coming from? I've seen 96, 97, 98, 99% on other sites... it seems to me they are just making the numbers up as they go.
-
One could loosely suggest that someone born with an extra chromosome was more monkey like, but that is ignorant an unfounded. Evolutionists tend to go by the fossil trail left by humanoid forms over eons of time. The enlargening brain, and the skeletal changes show a gradual change. DNA is mainly used as supporting rather than substancial evidence.
As for the numbers, scientific studies will often yield data that is a little off from a previous value, but they cannot be expected to get the same results every time. Samples change, they are not the same.
-
Enlarging brain huh? Cromagnon had a brain size of 1600 cc, some 200 cc larger than the average modern human
-
Things can even out over time. Neanderthal had a big brain too, but he died out. Brain size doesn't always represent active intelligence. Generally though, the brain grew larger. Humanity had different "breeds" if you will at a time though. There were three groups living on the EurAsian continent. Cromagnon could have been one of the ones that did not make it and if he did live on, his brain could become more efficient and not require the same amount of space.
-
You can look these up and see what the agenda of most of these evolutionists are... it was done in the past and it's still done today.
"Neanderthal Man" It was proven in 1872 by Rudolf Virchow, the greatest pathologist of the day who examined the Neanderthal bones were of a fully developed middle aged individual who differed only in apperance to other people because of deforming bone diseases such as rickets, and arthritis. Almost fifty years after the discovery of the La Chapelle-auxSaints Neanderthal specimen, Anatomists Straus of John Hopkins University and Cave of St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College reeexamined these bones in 1957, confirming Rudolf Virchow's findings.
"Piltdown Man" The remains were discovered from 1908-1912. This was one of the most clever hoaxes in the evolution camp.
The Piltdown hoax was not discovered until the 1950s in the mean time between 400-500 Ph.D. desertations were written on the Piltdown man. Just goes to show that you can't trust the "Evolutionary Elite." If they were honest they should have handed in their degrees.
The facts in this case turned out to be part of a human skull and an ape jaw whos teeth were filled down to make it look more human and both pieces were stained with Bichromate of Potash to make the pieces look older and to conceal their identity.
Sir Arthur Keith 1866-1955 one of the worlds most knowledgeable anatomists was given these bones to study and he was fooled by his own preconceptions about evolution.
"Nebraska Man" "Nebraska Man"-Was discovered in Nebraska, 1922 by Geologist Harold Cook. The evidence was used in the famous Scopes evolution trial in Dayton, Tennesse. They had great scientific experts saying that they had evidence that Nebraska Man was the missing link between man and monkey.
What evidence did they have, a tooth, thats right just a tooth, thats all. Illustrated London News had one of their artists draw a picture as to what this so called apeman looked like based on a tooth. Then the artist drew a picture of what his wife must of looked like, all around a tooth. In 1928, the embarrasing truth came out, the tooth came from a pig. The first "pig" to make a monkey out of an evolutionist. The Scopes Monkey Trial had given good publicity to evolution and Nebraska man had been burned into peoples imagination. I will have more on this topic later.
"Java Man" (originally called Pithecanthropus erectus-meaning erect ape man and now called Homoerectus and dated by evolutionists at 500,000 years old) was made from a few scrapes of bone found 1891 in Java Indonesia. Dutch Anatomist Dr. Dubois (1858-1940) believed in evolution and had gone to look for mising links between man and apes.
Dubois took an ape's skull cap, and three human teeth plus a thigh bone (found a year later and 50 feet away) from a human and informed the world he had found the "missing the link." He hid the fact that he had also found two normal human skulls in the same area. His deceit was revealed 30 years later.
-
That's a very nice post, however I'm wondering why you simply used the weakest examples. Sure some of them are wrong, but do they speak for their whole side?
As far as the Theory goes, it can't really be proven, but it cannot really be disproven. My problem is how such a complex thing could happen here, but yet some rule out the idea that it could happen other places (read: aliens).
Speaking of which, scientology is a very interesting topic...
...perhaps I should create a topic on that.
-
I'm not ruling out evolution, I'm just saying that it is merely a theory as of yet. Until all the (true) facts are in I'm not going to say it's a Fact.
-
I'm not ruling out evolution, I'm just saying that it is merely a theory as of yet. Until all the (true) facts are in I'm not going to say it's a Fact.
I gather that, but I think it is unfair to use the weakest examples and count it against their whole side. That's all I was saying.
-
Here's a quote from Richard Leakey a noted Evolutionist:
???Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.' The author goes on to say: 'David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, ???forget it: there isn't enough to go on???.???
Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43
-
The examples of forgeries really brings me back. I remember something like this on either the History or Discovery Channel which was narrated by that Alec Baldwin guy, yeah good program too.
Piltdown man was a pretty bad hoax, but the board of science had some unscientific bias in it, mostly trusting a British man's clain without further examination. The problem with Piltdown man was that it was fabricated to look like exacly half-man, half-ape looking though. The British scientists were only interested in national prde and the finders were only interested in fame and/or money. A man went to that same board and was rejected even though his claim was legitimate.
The Nebraska man was pretty unrealistic anyway. Why would the missing link be on a different continent. Early human fears, lack of sea travel experience, and the fact that their live's often were dependent upon herding populations of animals mostly prove this to be true. While some early humans did cross over to the USA, probably on a land bridge near Alaska, for the missing link to do this would be absurd.
Didn't Java mans founder squander away his money in the search only to come up with close to nothing? He was one of the crazy ones. I think the TV program portrayed him as a good artist, but his sketchs were what prove him to think the way he did. He wanted to find the missing link so bad that it made him see what he wanted to see.
All of these people though were just the imitators. Most only based what they did on the success of other peoples' findings which were true findings.
That quote is from 1981, there are some newer technologues today which make some claims easier to verify.
-
I'm now going to give my last post in this topic.
So long.
Mod Edit: Spam-ish...
-
I'm now going to give my last post in this topic.
So long.
Who says Darwin's against Jesus?
-
Sorry, my second to last http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html
-
This is what I hate about some people. They get to the point where they have to drag out something that only serves to infuriate other people.
The second link which you posted says that he did not recant evolution on his deathbed. The whole website is obviously run from a Christian perspective anyway and does not hesitate to take pot shots at Darwin himself. Most unbaised articles give better information, by the way.
-
TRM, you seem as if you are a very religious man.
-
The second link which you posted says that he did not recant evolution on his deathbed. The whole website is obviously run from a Christian perspective anyway and does not hesitate to take pot shots at Darwin himself.
Yes, it's cheap argument. Why not address the actual theory of evolution instead of those who may have made mistakes in contributing to the theory? So the argument is dead at this point, unless someone cares to revive it from it's current state.
Most unbaised articles give better information, by the way.
There's no such thing as unbiased. Even when merely listing facts, there is a manner in which it is done that tentatively promotes one side over the other, even when unintentional.
Mod Edit: Keep on topic completely.
-
Just as there is no real line between true fact and theory, as we can never prove that something is not merely virtually apparent. It it therefore only as we define it, though really theres no way to mathematically define it: Its just what most scientists believe, and (crucially) the amount of otherwise unlikely evidence.
God, on the other hand... if there is/was a God, where did HE come from? Where is He now? Where did He got the power to create everything and design life? THAT is far less logical.
Perhaps much like the universe, He has always existed?
Thats the thing that basically sums it up for me.
The universe does actually exist. Its there; We can (some of) see it; We are in it.
Its rather sensible to assume its eternal existance than to assume the eternal existance of something/someone incredibly powerful, which we cannot see, and can only believe in. This is the point on which i rest my belief in there being no God. This obviously relies on believing that the universe recycles itself, or spawns something fresh.
We can't imagine something to have thought and lived for eternity: Indeed any creator would also have to be the creator of time itself, for our universe. But its easy to imagine time existing eternally.We know time has passed before we are born, and will pass after we die (unless you die during ragnarok lol).
I won't use 'God' as an answer. I believe in 'types' as there are types of animals which I consider species... Dog (which includes Chihuahuas and Mastiffs) they are still Dogs even though they are very disimilar. There are Cats (from the domestic house cat to the large Jungle cats like a Tiger) they are still Cats. I don't believe that a Dog will ever turn into a Cat. And I do not believe that an Ape turned into a Man either.
So where were dogs and cats when dogs and cats didnt exist?
How can anything other than either God or evolution (or aliens ;) )be used to justify that?
How do you know that Dog's and even humans did not exists in the 'Dinosaur Times'? Were you there, was any scientist there to observe?
Because there are no fossils: Continental land masses havent changed much in the last billion years, other then moving around on top.
The oceanic lithosphere gets subducted around 100 Million years after its creation.
In order for there to be no evidence for dogs and cats, they'd have to either have been incredibly rare, or live deep underwater in a rarity that avoided any oceanic plateau becoming a continetal plate. For a very vast period of time (hundreds of millions of years), the only fossils recorded were of creatures buried in marine conditions. There were times when there is no evidence such that the conclusion is that even trees didnt exist, and land was therefore a rather boring place where nothing lived apart from coastal bacteria. There arent even any fossil records of flowers from dinosaur periods or before then.
Now, not all creatures can become lithified. If say, dogs and cats were several micrometers in size lol, then their skeletons wouldnt be preserved >_>.
1. we've found fossils of animals that have shown evolution of apes to humans
Yes. I was in a room of skulls in the Hunterian Museum at glasgow university. Quite alot of them (skulls) and each shows a suttle adaption. If to look at any two in the line, you'd think they were of the same, but then compare the next and you can see a pattern. Look at an entire table full of them and its really an incredibly logical thing to assume.
TRM: Your post of examples of lies from the researches doesnt mean to say the same lies could exist today. The 20th century, as we all know lol, saw a massive increase in our understanding of things. Even geology as a complete science is newer than computing science! And both, develop after all of your examples (or at least those to which you gave dates) are rather usefull in giving/validating evidence. In the 1920s the few who would say that the continents were moving were laughed at. Now that satellites indeed prove continental drift, its possible for man to reach a certain stage on a super continent whcih the split, hence existing in ocean seperated locations, with slight differences supporting evolution since the break up of the last super continent. There are many more people researching these kinds of things today, all over the world (certainly in the 80s), and they arent all going to just believe what they are told by the word of other scientists.
-
Also let me make this clear; Brain Size != Intelligence. Modern humans had a MUCH larger capacity for intelligence than Neandrethals, who we DIDN'T evolve from (they had bigger brains).
-
My opinion is that I don't ignore evolution - I believe it happened and is happening, but I'm not ready to accept it as a law of science until proven beyond doubt.
-
My opinion is that I don't ignore evolution - I believe it happened and is happening, but I'm not ready to accept it as a law of science until proven beyond doubt.
Nah, its not really happening anymore.
Our civilization is WAY too big, to spread genes and mutations around. Also because everyone is mating together across the world, we'll actually start getting more and more similar looking to eachother. Also, bad mutations will survive as well as good mutations, as its much easier to keep people alive these days, with hospitals and medicine.
-
There are much more bacteria than humans and yet they spread there mutations around? Strange argument.
-
Also let me make this clear; Brain Size != Intelligence. Modern humans had a MUCH larger capacity for intelligence than Neandrethals, who we DIDN'T evolve from (they had bigger brains).
WRONG!!! Brain size doesn't equal intelligence, it's the brain texture that matters. Animals with rougher brains are more intelligent than ones with smooth brains.
-
Also let me make this clear; Brain Size != Intelligence. Modern humans had a MUCH larger capacity for intelligence than Neandrethals, who we DIDN'T evolve from (they had bigger brains).
Considering that there are populations of Homo sapiens with high similarity to neanderthals, neanderthal DNA likely makes up a portion of some people's DNA. They weren't a full species on their own anyway, and it's entirely possible they died out from interbreeding.
My opinion is that I don't ignore evolution - I believe it happened and is happening, but I'm not ready to accept it as a law of science until proven beyond doubt.
Nah, its not really happening anymore.
Our civilization is WAY too big, to spread genes and mutations around. Also because everyone is mating together across the world, we'll actually start getting more and more similar looking to eachother. Also, bad mutations will survive as well as good mutations, as its much easier to keep people alive these days, with hospitals and medicine.
It's not happening so much in HUMANS, not because of the first things you mentioned, but instead medicine. Evolution only works when things with bad genes die before they can reproduce, which rarely happens any more. Most people live long enough to have kids, unfortunately.
Also let me make this clear; Brain Size != Intelligence. Modern humans had a MUCH larger capacity for intelligence than Neandrethals, who we DIDN'T evolve from (they had bigger brains).
WRONG!!! Brain size doesn't equal intelligence, it's the brain texture that matters. Animals with rougher brains are more intelligent than ones with smooth brains.
!= means "does not equal". <_< >_>
It's not just texture, either. Symmetry tends to help.
-
Umm Dylan != is Not Equal to.
-
ROFL dylan != means NOT equal XD
And anyway, pyru, about neanderthal extinction? Most likeley you are wrong. Don't take offense when I say this, but I did a reserach paper on neanderthal extinction for school, and there is VERY little-to-no evidence that says neanderthals and homo sapiens mated. The combination of the ice age (rapidly shrinking forests), and the competition with the homo sapiens over Territory and food most likely lead to the extinction. The neanderthals needed the forests to hunt, and the homo sapiens also ate plants. (Neanderthals ate all or almost all meat). The ice age they were in while they died out was the first one they shared with the humans, who were quicker and didn't rely on hunting as much.
-
ROFL dylan != means NOT equal XD
And anyway, pyru, about neanderthal extinction? Most likeley you are wrong. Don't take offense when I say this, but I did a reserach paper on neanderthal extinction for school, and there is VERY little-to-no evidence that says neanderthals and homo sapiens mated. The combination of the ice age (rapidly shrinking forests), and the competition with the homo sapiens over Territory and food most likely lead to the extinction. The neanderthals needed the forests to hunt, and the homo sapiens also ate plants. (Neanderthals ate all or almost all meat). The ice age they were in while they died out was the first one they shared with the humans, who were quicker and didn't rely on hunting as much.
I said it's a possible reason. There's very limited fossil record of neanderthals at all (btw, there are multitudes of good reasons for limited fossil records; it's a phenomenon that only occurs quite rarely. We're lucky to have enough fossils to show what we do have. It's biology anyway, and biology is always a rather inexact science), and very little to suggest that they didn't interbreed. The presence of neanderthal-esque characteristics implies either a) interbreeding or b) common ancestors from just before neanderthals became very distinct as a subspecies.
-
There are much more bacteria than humans and yet they spread there mutations around? Strange argument.
No, not strange; Bacteria don't have the benefit of modern technology, medicine, and humanitarian effort. If bacteria evolve a certain characteristic that will help them survive (IE: resistance to a certain medicine) they will become the new strain. The reason that humans aren't really evolving that much, is because we really have no need to evolve; and like someone said earlier, natural selection isn't as potent since most people in our population survive.
-
I personally think evolution is a fact. I doubt creatures just 'appeared' on the Earth just like that, they had to start somewhere.
Also, if you look at humans: different skin colours, accents etc, to suit their climate. They've adapted, adaption is evolution, evolution happened, and is happening. Also, bacteria, they are constantly adapting and evolving.
-
Also let me make this clear; Brain Size != Intelligence. Modern humans had a MUCH larger capacity for intelligence than Neandrethals, who we DIDN'T evolve from (they had bigger brains).
but cro magnons brain is bigger than both
-
I sure hate people who come and post in topics that were on the way to their deaths, only to revive the topic and put it in a mentally-degenerative state.
What officespace16 posted has already been resolved. In fact, in the quote that he quoted, it says that brain size does not equal intelligence, and yet he still thinks that the bigger brain means more intelligence. Also, if he thought that it meant "brain size = intelligence", that whole crap was resolved in the posts following his quote.
master K, and accent has nothing to do with evolution. Language does, but pronunciation of that language is not important or a factor in evolution. For example, words developed as the brain capacity and structure improved and integrated with simple sounds to improve the survivability and luxury of human-to-human communication. The rest of what you said has been already said by other users in this topic, including me, and I find that repetition only makes this whole topic dumber. You could have expanded someones ideas by incorporating your own ideas, but you decided not to. This is not a place to just raise your post count.
Anyway, I was not going to post here, but I thought that cloning and genetic manipulation relates to this topic. Can artificial evolution surpass natural evolution? If you do not know what that means, if scientist fully unlocked the genome and were allowed to change human embryos to be however they wanted, would this lead to the self-destruction of the human race, or its improvement?
Would this also be ethical? My ideas on the subject relate closely to Gundam SEED here, but would there be wars between the Naturals (normal born) and the Coordinators (artificially assisted and manipulated to be better)? Certainly diseases could be easily stopped, but is superhuman perfection the right way to go? If there was not any struggle of life, would we still be a humanity? I know that humanities convenience has changed over the centuries, but if we were perfect genetically, would we become lazy and arrogant? What I am trying to say is: Should humanity be like organic or genetically modified crops? and should human really decide the path of life?
-
brain size does matter to intelligence, more stuff fits in it, it's just we don't use all of it
-
brain size does matter to intelligence, more stuff fits in it, it's just we don't use all of it
-_-
It's brain COMPLEXITY.
Big computers aren't always powerful, it's the complexity of their processors that make them powerful. Same with brains.
-
well know a-days it's not true, cuz they have technology to make things smaller work, but our brains haven't evolved in a while
-
well know a-days it's not true, cuz they have technology to make things smaller work, but our brains haven't evolved in a while
Smaller things work because they're MORE COMPLEX. Size means nothing.
-
says who? we are more complex than an ameoba, that's really small
-
Your argument is flawed because the amoeba does not have a brain; it has a nucleus with preprogrammed cell activities. From what you are saying, it seems like you are forgetting about relative size. Of course a small brain in a goldfish is not going to be as smart as a human brain, but that is because the fishes body cannot hold a big brain and nor does it need to. The fish does not have to do math, worry about the passage of time (except that its hormones determine mating), or if it thinks itself is fat. The amoeba does not have a complex brain because it does not need one.
The human did. Overtime, the brain did not need as much space and developed regions to handle different things. This specialization and decrease in neural distance allowed humans to think quicker and better. Thus, they were able to survive more often. In other words, if I took a bunch of mentally-challenged brains and made a mentally-challenged Frankenstein with twenty mentally-challenged brains, he would not be smarter than me because brain size alone does not matter. Coordination of neural networks does.
The computer is the perfect example. There used to be computers that took up whole rooms, but now there are computers that can fit on desk tops, in your lap, or in the palm of your hand. How the hell did this happen? Because the microchip made normal functions simpler all while decreasing space. Simpler does not mean dumber, it means doing more with little.
-
*slow clap*
bravo!
r u majoring in this or something?
-
O_o
Whoa, amazing! You are uber smart!
-
except brains dont evolve, a brain is a brain
-
except brains dont evolve, a brain is a brain
So why did the human brain split into different sections and lobes? To make things more efficient and that's the whole point to evolution. To take something to the next level.
O_o
Whoa, amazing! You are uber smart!
Na, that's called logic. It's amazing isn't it?
-
things deteriate overtime due to Earth's closed system. They cannot evolve or improve. The laws of thermodynamics explains this. Therefore its a belief, which inturn means that it cannot be based on fact.
-
The Earth is not in a closed system, the Earth revolves around the Sun and is part of a moving galaxy. Pwned.
Evolution is not the change of an individual, but the observed change in a group. Things more likely and more adapted to survive will survive, all of which is based on necessity, some chance, and foreign interference.
-
"In the late 19th century, thermodynamicist Ludwig Boltzmann argued that the fundamental object of contention in the life-struggle in the evolution of the organic world is 'available energy'. Since then, over the years, various thermodynamic researchers have come forward to ascribed to or to postulate potential fourth laws of thermodynamics; in some cases, there are even fifth or sixth laws of thermodynamics supposed. The majority of these tentative fourth law statements are attempts to reconcile the thermodynamics with evolution, predominantly. Most fourth law statements, however, are speculative and far from agreed upon."
Hypothetical != Fact
Pwned again.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics#Tentative_fourth_laws_or_principles
-
It is closed, because it cannot receive any more energy. Adding energy is destructive without a complex mechanism to harness that energy. There is only one thing that can use the suns energy for order, that is chlorophyll. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics cannot be overcome. Note also that evolution has not been observed.
-
It is closed, because it cannot receive any more energy. Adding energy is destructive without a complex mechanism to harness that energy. There is only one thing that can use the suns energy for order, that is chlorophyll. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics cannot be overcome. Note also that evolution has not been observed.
I do not get what you are trying to convey. The Sun gives energy to the Earth. During a solar eclipse or a sunspot, that energy is decreased to certain regions. When normality resumes, the energy returns to normal. The Earth also rotates and revolves around the Sun, creating times of night to "cool off" and having times when it is closer or farther from the Sun. Distant and faroff galaxies also send light our way which adds some energy to the system. There may have been times when the Earth was even receiving more energy than it is now, but it was fine then.
The Sun's energy is not solely for chemical potential energy. There is something in the optic cells of creatures that begins with an "r" (not retina) that converts light to electrical nerve signals. Solar panels also capture and use this light to store energy. Energy does not need to be "harnessed" either. The energy from the Sun gives heat to the planet and its organisms; even though it might be interpreted as disorderly. This heat gives the system of Earth energy to function; i.e. most known living things need some level of warmth to survive well. The second law of thermodynamics also varies on some microscopic things:
The entropy of a thermally isolated macroscopic system never decreases (see Maxwell's demon), however a microscopic system may exhibit fluctuations of entropy opposite to that dictated by the Second Law (see Fluctuation Theorem). In fact the mathematical proof of the Fluctuation Theorem from time-reversible dynamics and the Axiom of Causality, constitutes a proof of the Second Law. In a logical sense the Second Law thus ceases to be a "Law" of Physics and instead becomes a theorem which is valid for large systems or long times.
EDIT: You are right on clorophyll though, it does store energy in a more ordered system (sugar). The process in which the organism goes through to make that stable energy goes beyond the chlorophyll though. The mitochondria does the dirty work.
Evolution has also been observed macroscopically on tusked elephants and is the most viable reason for the many forms of life and explains the ability for similar animals of the genus not species to create a hybrid offspring.
-
Its a Theory nothing more.
-
The 'belief' that everything came from one big bang, 'belief' that matter some how organized itself, 'belief' that matter created life. Since none of this has been Observed I think it will remain theory.
To be specific about the term evolution I think microevolution is fact. As wolves and gods have a common ancestor but a comparison between dog and an apple is stupid.
-
The "belief" of the big bang extends far beyond science itself; many religions have supported it. Cosmic background radiation and the red shifting of distant galaxies support the big bang theory and the fact that most of the matter propagating the universe is made up of the primordial elements, hydrogen and its similars, even more support it. And yes, the effects have been observed, and looking up at the night sky is like looking into the past because the light there is from millions of years ago, and it is red shifting. And using the argument that "we did not see the big bang so it must not have happened" is dumb as well.
And for apples and dogs to develop and have these similar nucleotide orderings, shows that life most likely developed from one common ancestor.
-
Here's my theory:
The Big Bang: According to Genesis, God said "Let there be Light!" Um, I don't know about you, but an explosion on that massive a scale is sure to produce a HUGE amount of light.
Evolving: There are 2 types of genes: Dominant, and Recessive. Over time, these two genes can cause some pretty unique changes to an organism, but not to the scale of becoming an entirley new species. That's just plin stupid.
Exctinction of the Dinosaurs: Remember the flood? Yes...
So, all in all, I believe in both. But, there are some parts of evolution which are, well, not possible.
Also, in my case, I don't give a damn how we got here. I just want to know where we're going.
-
The Big Bang: According to Genesis, God said "Let there be Light!" Um, I don't know about you, but an explosion on that massive a scale is sure to produce a HUGE amount of light.
What does the Big Bang have to do with evolution?
Evolving: There are 2 types of genes: Dominant, and Recessive. Over time, these two genes can cause some pretty unique changes to an organism, but not to the scale of becoming an entirley new species. That's just plin stupid.
Primula kewensis and Helacyton gartleri disagree with you.
Remember the flood?
Certainly not.
But, there are some parts of evolution which are, well, not possible.
Could you list some?
-
What does the Big Bang have to do with evolution?
Nothing, I just felt like posting that.
Could you list some?
Ok...how can life simply "appear?" Even micro-organisms had to start somewhere.
-
Evolving: There are 2 types of genes: Dominant, and Recessive. Over time, these two genes can cause some pretty unique changes to an organism, but not to the scale of becoming an entirley new species. That's just plin stupid.
Heard of a little thing called mutation? The genes are changed, so new ones appear.
Exctinction of the Dinosaurs: Remember the flood? Yes...
Yeah, my house got flooded. What does that have to do with dinosaurs?
There is absolutely no evidence for a world-flood. None at all. The mass extinction of dinosaurs has many other, much more credible theories, that are actually supported by evidence.
Also, in my case, I don't give a damn how we got here. I just want to know where we're going.
Amen.
Could you list some?
Ok...how can life simply "appear?" Even micro-organisms had to start somewhere.
How could God simply MAKE life appear? For that matter, what made God appear?
But, life. Amino acids have been artificially produced from their base elements in conditions similar to what the evidence suggest a primordial Earth would have been like. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, which are a very common self-replicating compound... in other words, a big part of life.
-
what made God appear?
Maybe He's always been there. He didn't have to "appear". There are plenty of things around us that had no beginning. Maybe God's one of those things ;)
-
what made God appear?
Maybe He's always been there. He didn't have to "appear". There are plenty of things around us that had no beginning. Maybe God's one of those things ;)
Speculation. Evidence, please? Cite something that's not biased, religious and entirely (or even mostly) fictional, if you will.
Pretty much what you'd say to me in any other debate. :P
-
Are you reffering to things that have had no beginning or God having no beginning, lol.
If you're reffering to the latter, it's in the Bible, lol.
If the former, then there's no real link that I can hand you that will cover every idea (especially if you accept all aspects of the Big Bang theory), but the very best read is possibly here (http://cooltech.iafrica.com/technews/932264.htm).
-
Are you reffering to things that have had no beginning or God having no beginning, lol.
If you're reffering to the latter, it's in the Bible, lol.
I said refer to something that's not biased, religious and mostly fictious. The bible is, in fact, all three of those.
If the former, then there's no real link that I can hand you that will cover every idea (especially if you accept all aspects of the Big Bang theory), but the very best read is possibly here (http://cooltech.iafrica.com/technews/932264.htm)
I do believe that somethings have existed for "eternity", because the idea of literally nothing existing (no matter, no energy) defies logic... especially that law saying energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely transfered? Yeah, something coming from nothing would break that law.
-
I said refer to something that's not biased, religious and mostly fictious. The bible is, in fact, all three of those.
Only one of those :)
I do believe that somethings have existed for "eternity", because the idea of literally nothing existing (no matter, no energy) defies logic... especially that law saying energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely transfered? Yeah, something coming from nothing would break that law.
Then there we go :)
-
I said refer to something that's not biased, religious and mostly fictious. The bible is, in fact, all three of those.
Only one of those :)
1. Biased: Biased towards the religious views and statements it wishes to purvey.
2. Religious: It's... uh... all about a religion. Or two. It's the holy book. What do you expect?
3. Mostly fictious: There is absolutely no evidence for a large number of biblically described events. There are no records kept by the majority of the people the early Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/whatever you wanna call them supposedly interacted with, including the Egyptians, who kept detailed records of everything - their victories AND defeats.
So, yeah. All three. :P
-
Ok...how can life simply "appear?" Even micro-organisms had to start somewhere.
That also has nothing to do with evolution; Evolution is changes in a population over time. The thing you're thinking about is abiogenesis, but that doesn't say that they 'appeared'; it's the idea that life started in a primordial sea slowly and gradually.
-
That argument is flawed. The fact that people were more "behaved" is true in certain areas of the past decades, but that is only because they shared their religion and not because that religion in itself preaches good values. For example, radical Islamists can hate other people with a passion, but because they are like each other, they do not fight with each other. Do not go around saying that religion is the grounds for good moral behavior; Christainity in other places of the world can be violent too. Religion and morals are seperate things.
So, the world may have seemed better to you back then because there was not as much violence. This was also due to the lack of interaction. However, I remember there being some excellent examples of violence back a few decades ago. You probably have not studied or have not learned about it yet. Some were not religiously based too. In conclusion, religion, Christianity in particular, is not the salvation from troubles that you are trying to sell it as. It is just as much of a problem as it is a solution.
-
I know that they are similar, but what I mean is that believing in God is not a moral, but being a good person is. The first five books of the Old Testament is the only truly religious part of the book in my opinion; mainly because they are also found in the Torah. The rest of it is mainly people telling stories, and that is not really religious anyway. So, most of the Bible is based on faith and stories that were chosen to be canonized and may or may not be true.
-
I do believe that somethings have existed for "eternity", because the idea of literally nothing existing (no matter, no energy) defies logic... especially that law saying energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely transfered? Yeah, something coming from nothing would break that law.
Sorry. I have to quote.
Guess what, buddy? You just unknowlingly debunked the big bang theory. Any other methods to debunk evolution? :P
-
How did he debunk the big bang? Unless you're refering to his statement saying that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted. Here's the thing about that: the big bang did not create anything. The theory of the big bang states that all matter that exists (since matter connot be created or destroyed either) was contained in a very small space. At one point it "exploded" as it were, and released large amounts of energy, projecting the mass outwards. Now it may seem like energy was just created out of nowhere, but before that explosion the energy could have been merely potential.That energy was not created, but merely converted into kinetic energy, thus sending the bits of things out into the universe.
As you can see the big bang theory supports the law in that all matter and enrgy were not created, but released and converted. That amount of energy (eg: all energy) would undoubtedly create a huge explosion of sorts, thus giving it the name "The Big Bang".
-
Actually, if you let matter collide with antimatter the matter is 'destroyed' and energy is 'created'
-
Actually, if you let matter collide with antimatter the matter is 'destroyed' and energy is 'created'
Nope. Nuclear physics leads to suggest that matter itself is consisted entirely of energy; in "destroying" matter, you are merely releasing the energy that it was formed from.
-
Actually, if you let matter collide with antimatter the matter is 'destroyed' and energy is 'created'
Nope. Nuclear physics leads to suggest that matter itself is consisted entirely of energy; in "destroying" matter, you are merely releasing the energy that it was formed from.
Yes, I have to back you up on this one. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed per se. ^_^
-
I was thinking about this kinda stuff before, and confused myself quite a bit
I was thinking, perhaps matter isn't really something in itself, but rather a lack of something, a lack of anti-matter. With magnetic charges it seems that if you can truly combine them you get a neutral charge, things can react to a positive, or negative charge, but if you combine the two and form a neutral charge? Matter must be the same way, when you combine it with anti-matter neither gets destroyed. They combine into a neutral form, and still exist, but things don't react to them... It takes energy to seperate the two (like oppositely charged magnets), when they're recombined that energy would be re-released.
-
Actually, if you let matter collide with antimatter the matter is 'destroyed' and energy is 'created'
Nope. Nuclear physics leads to suggest that matter itself is consisted entirely of energy; in "destroying" matter, you are merely releasing the energy that it was formed from.
'destroyed' and 'created' just refering to the 'rule' that matter cannot be created or destroyed...
-
EPIC !@#$% BUMP, but I had to share this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkMHRDAOlA
Also, saying Evolution is a "Theory and not a fact" has no merit.. You know what else is a theory and not a fact? Hm... Gravity..
-
Existence: Theory
Oxygen: Theory
Atoms: Theory
Religion: Hypothesis
Evolution: Theory
The Period of Elements: Theory
Gravity: Theory
You want me to continue?