Creationism vs evolutionism — General Chatter

Dual-Avatar

Feb 03, 2006 · 02:56 #1

Ok listen up and listen carefully because this topic can potentially turn into a massive flame war.
1st. pick your side. do you support evolution or creation
2nd. state your reason.
3rd. education level (if in college state majors and minors)
4th. age
5th. why you think you are correct (keep it short)
make this line "-------------------------------------"
below this line you may argue your points. Please back up your Claim (single) with evidence so that way you dont sound like a blabering idiot. Your evidence can be something that is scientific or a quote from the bible. HOwever keep in mind that your case will not be very strong if you use the bible to support the bible. Please use only one claim per post that way it is easier for someone else to counter argue.

This thread is aimed to generate an interesting and civilized debate between two major beliefs. There is no right or wrong regardless of which side you pick. Please do not turn it into a flame war because I don't want to see the caretakers lock down this thread.

Remember, how well you can defend your claim using CREDIBLE evidence, logical reasoning, and rhetorical spins will determine how strong your case is.

Dual-Avatar

Feb 03, 2006 · 04:16 #2

1. evolution
2. i dont belive that everything that is was made by somthing i can not see
3. High School graduate, no collage yet
4. 18
5. The theory of evolution, while unlikely, is possible without calling for a mystic presence, or "creator" in which no one can ever see.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no support needed for this statement, just posting my opinion so far, once the debate gets going ill have support for any claims i make

Avatar

Feb 03, 2006 · 06:08 #3

1. evolution
2. i dont think things magically derive from someplace out of no where
3. high school gratuate
4. 19
5. everything derives from someplace i.e. the earth was created by particles from space, etc and did not just appear one day

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

just an opinion at this point

★ Arch-Caretaker

Feb 03, 2006 · 14:03 #4

I don't feel like doing this again. We've rehashed this topic for over 20 pages on gamehavoc. There's a HUGE "grey area" between straight Creationism and straight Evolution.

★ Arch-Caretaker

Feb 03, 2006 · 14:22 #5

Since when does one preclude the other?

You are steering this to a flamewar on purpose.

http://www.venganza.org/

WHY YOU SHOULD CONVERT TO FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTERISM

- Flimsy moral standards.
- Every friday is a relgious holiday. If your work/school objects to that, demand your religious beliefs are respected and threaten to call the ACLU.
- Our heaven is WAY better. We've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano.

Tri-Avatar

Feb 03, 2006 · 18:21 #6

1st. evolution
2nd. gods a chump
3rd. currently in grade 10
4th. 15
5th. gods a chump
-------------------------------------
god sucks

Avatar

Feb 04, 2006 · 03:59 #7

1. Creation
2. God has created everything
3. High School (Senior)
4. 17
5. Ive had spiritual events that have happened to me that can only be explained through divine intervention.
------------------------------------
Have you read the beginning of the bible? It says God created the world and everything/one. Dont know about you but i believe in the Bible (New and Old) and also the Book of Mormon. And im feeling kind of tired to keep typing

TO BE CONTINUED

Lowbie

Feb 04, 2006 · 10:18 #8

1. Creationism
2. It's the way I've been brought up
3. Highschool (Senior) and 1st yr uni
4. 16
5. Something as amazing as the world can't be just some fluke of science
---------------------------------------------------
While I believe in God, I don't beleive in straight Creationism, I think it's possible that evolution is a device of creation

Dual-Avatar

Feb 04, 2006 · 17:40 #9

CODE · MUD Output

While I believe in God, I don't beleive in straight Creationism, I think it's possible that evolution is a device of creation

How can the two theories coexist? doesn't the bible say that God made men and evolution says that apes turn into men?

⚔ Caretaker

Feb 04, 2006 · 17:56 #10

You listen to parts and make your own version of it.

Dual-Avatar

Feb 05, 2006 · 04:17 #11

CODE · MUD Output

Have you read the beginning of the bible? It says God created the world and everything/one. Dont know about you but i believe in the Bible (New and Old) and also the Book of Mormon. And im feeling kind of tired to keep typing

Have you read past the beginning of the bible? it says that you worth 20 shekels and celeborn and I each worth around 50 shekels. Do you believe that too? I don't know about you but I hope that i worth a bit more than 50 shekels.

Avatar

Feb 05, 2006 · 04:56 #12

lol, what are you talking about. Ive never heard of that before.

Dual-Avatar

Feb 05, 2006 · 04:58 #13

check it out for yourself. leviticus 27:3+

Dual-Avatar

Feb 05, 2006 · 05:11 #14

CODE · MUD Output

5. Ive had spiritual events that have happened to me that can only be explained through divine intervention.

would you like to share? if you rather do it privately pm me, i'm interested.

Avatar

Feb 05, 2006 · 05:38 #15

lingolas wrote:
check it out for yourself. leviticus 27:3+

Those amounts are not how much we are worth. Its how much a person must pay in tithing.

Dual-Avatar

Feb 05, 2006 · 06:01 #16

CODE · MUD Output

Those amounts are not how much we are worth. Its how much a person must pay in tithing.

so in other words, "black market" instruction or trading scale for slave exchange?

Dual-Avatar

Feb 05, 2006 · 06:11 #17

Voska wrote:

CODE · MUD Output

everything derives from someplace i.e. the earth was created by particles from space, etc and did not just appear one day

How can you be sure that those particles from space was not created by God, Alah, or the flying spaghetti monster?

Dual-Avatar

Feb 05, 2006 · 06:16 #18

kiasyn writes:

CODE · MUD Output

You listen to parts and make your own version of it.

how do you know which part to take and which to dismiss? and even if you come up with your own version, how can it be any more credible than the two original versions?

⚔ Caretaker

Feb 05, 2006 · 07:30 #19

lingolas wrote:
kiasyn writes:
CODE · MUD Output
You listen to parts and make your own version of it.
how do you know which part to take and which to dismiss? and even if you come up with your own version, how can it be any more credible than the two original versions?

It doesn't have to be credible, just something you can believe in. If you seek to know exactly what happened, you will never be happy.

Dual-Avatar

Feb 06, 2006 · 06:41 #20

i agree with kiasyn, some stuff cant be explained as simply as "god did it" or "its randomly fell togeather" and i doubt any 2 people on earth have the exact same views on how everything in this world, and or the next came to be. just because we read it in the bible or whatever holy book you may read dosnt mean we dont question it a little. and as kiasyn said, "If you seek to know exactly what happened, you will never be happy."

Avatar

Feb 24, 2006 · 20:19 #21

1st. Both creationism and evolutionism!

2nd. Both views have serious flaws that can't be explained unless both are viewed as a part of the whole.

3rd. I only have an A.S. degree, but I have taken courses on and off most of my life. All together about 6-7 years of higher ed. and I was a canidate for the ministery in the Methodist church for 2 years.

4th. I am 47 years old.

5th. I have studied this for many years, wrote research papers on the subject, and gave sermons about it. Only a theory that takes both into account can resolve the problems with each.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will only use one of many examples here to conserve space, the bible mystery of Cain and how he found a wife and other people in the land of Nod when he was kicked out of Eden, when the bible clearly states that at the time he was the only child of Adam and Eve.
First some pertanant facts.
Science has shown that we all have a common male ancestor only 60,000 years in the past. simular results were found for a common female ancestor a few years back. These studies are refered to as The search for Adam and The search for Eve.
Simular species can mate, with more success than was thought possible a few years back. Example: Tigers and Lions have breed in zoos that did not keep the large cats seperated. Some of the offspring have genitic deformites as might be expected, but not all. One of the most common problems with these offspring is fertility, but almost anything is possible.

Back to the Bible; There must have been a settlement called Nod close to Eden that was inhabited by a humanoid race that was not the perfect race of man created by God through Adam. The inhabitents of Nod had to be humanoid for Cain to take one as a wife, and to build a named comunity. But they were not the same race as Cain, and the proof is in the Book of Numbers.
The Book of Numbers is the most boring book in the Bible. It is just a long list of people, who their children were, and the age they were at the time of their first born. It lists the decendents of Cain and Seth (Adam & Eve's 3rd. son). A comparasion of these two family lines proves quite interesting. Each generation of Cain's decendants have a shorter lifespan than the one that came befor. Where as Seth's decendents continue to live long lives like their fore-fathers. That is untill Seth's decendents start to marry into Cain's decendents. By the time of Noah, nearly everyone was a mix of these different bloodlines.
There is also mention of "Hero's and Giants" in the Bible. Might these be genitic freaks of Cain's decent. Geneticly speaking it is possible, but these sub species would be born into a genetic bottleneck that would almost ensure their extiction. Some meager evdience of these Giant Humans have been found, a few teeth, not enough to determin anything but a rough guess to their weight of apx. 500lbs.
There is still evedience of this interbreeding today. Many humans have infertility problems today, more than our share when compaired to other animals on this planet. People are born with one or more physical aspects that resemble Nethanderal man more than modren humans.
Well I could go one, but this is already becoming a long post, so I will stop here. Hope I didn't bore you all to much.

Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies

Retired Caretaker

Feb 24, 2006 · 22:27 #22

religious fanatics will 'always' say there is no middle ground, there is only one way (their 'right' way)

die hard christians (the ones who are ya know.. different) believe the world is exactly 6,000 years old. That's what you get when you use scientific tools with the bible.

dinosaurs did not live 1,000,000 years ago, they lived around the time of adam and eve.

i look at those claims and say ok, sure, if scientific proof on carbon dating is based upon a false assumption, ok, maybe the world is only 6,000 years old.

but that's not to say i subscribe to the bibles philosophy. Buddism is an older religion (arguably) and if you stop, and look at all these older religions, and see if they have anything in common, they do. It's all the same, you take a set of rules, and live your life by the rules set forth, and your friends and neighbours do the same.

i would be interested in hearing how the hindus and buddists believe the world came into being.

science, and a christian/catholic god are probably just two possibilities, i'm sure there's more.

Avatar

Feb 25, 2006 · 03:45 #23

Creationism and evolutionism don't even answer the same questions. Christian fundamentalists try to force theology and science into realms they don't belong. There are many Christians who beleive in evolution and creationism.

The writing is out there to be read. Just root around for it.

Dual-Avatar

Feb 25, 2006 · 21:28 #24

yeh, an intelligent response with well thoughts and ample evidence and reasoning. I'm gonna play devils advocate and see if I can crack this one.

CODE · MUD Output

Science has shown that we all have a common male ancestor only 60,000 years in the past

I will show that the common male ancestor predates 60000 years as suggested by our friend.

Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago
The earliest fossil hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus, is a recent discovery. It is dated at 4.4 million years ago. The remains are incomplete but enough is available to suggest it was bipedal and about 4 feet tall.
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Anamensis lived between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago. Its body showed advanced bipedal features, but the skull closely resembled the ancient apes.
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
lived between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. It retained the apelike face with a sloping forehead, a distinct ridge over the eyes, flat nose and a chinless lower jaw. It had a brain capacity of about 450 cc. It was between 3'6" and 5' tall. It was fully bipedal and the thickness of its bones showed that it was quite strong. Its build (ratio of weight to height) was about the same as the modern human but its head and face were proportionately much larger. This larger head with powerful jaws is a feature of all species prior to Homo sapiens sapiens
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
was quite similar to afarensis and lived between three and two million years ago. It was also bipedal, but was slightly larger in body size. Its brain size was also slightly larger, ranging up to 500 cc. The brain was not advanced enough for speech. The molars were a little larger than in afarensis and much larger than modern human. This hominid was a herbivore and ate tough, hard to chew, plants. The shape of the jaw was now like the human.
Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
was called the handy man because tools were found with his fossil remains. This species existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. The brain size in earlier fossil specimens was about 500cc but rose to 800cc toward the end of the species life period. The species brain shape shows evidence that some speech had developed. Habilis was about 5' tall and weighed about 100 pounds. Some scientists believe that habilis is not a separate species and should be carried either as a later Australopithecine or an early Homo erectus. It is possible that early examples are in one species group and later examples in the other.

Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
lived between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. It was a successful species for a million and a half years. Early examples had a 900cc brain size on the average. The brain grew steadily during its reign. Toward the end its brain was almost the same size as modern man, at about 1200cc. The species definitely had speech. Erectus developed tools, weapons and fire and learned to cook his food. He traveled out of Africa into China and Southeast Asia and developed clothing for northern climates. He turned to hunting for his food. Only his head and face differed from modern man. Like habilis, the face had massive jaws with huge molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull. Though proportioned the same, he was sturdier in build and much stronger than the modern human.
Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago
provides the bridge between erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens during the period 200,000 to 500,000 years ago. Many skulls have been found with features intermediate between the two. Brain averaged about 1200cc and speech was indicated. Skulls are more rounded and with smaller features. Molars and brow ridges are smaller. The skeleton shows a stronger build than modern human but was well proportioned.

Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago
lived in Europe and the Mideast between 150,000 and 35,000 years ago. Neandertals coexisted with H.sapiens (archaic) and early H.sapiens sapiens. It is not known whether he was of the same species and disappeared into the H.sapiens sapiens gene pool or he may have been crowded out of existence (killed off) by the H.sapien sapien. Recent DNA studies have indicated that the neandertal was an entirely different species and did not merge into the H. sapiens sapiens gene pool. Brain sizes averaged larger than modern man at about 1450cc but the head was shaped differently, being longer and lower than modern man. His nose was large and was different from modern man in structure. He was a massive man at about 5'6" tall with an extremely heavy skeleton that showed attachments for massive muscles. He was far stronger than modern man. His jaw was massive and he had a receding forehead, like erectus.
Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present
first appeared about 120,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc.

Homo Sapiens first appeared about 120, 000 years ago in a line of evolution; therefore it is not possible to have a common ancesstor at 60000 on the time line as suggested.

CODE · MUD Output

Simular species can mate, with more success than was thought possible a few years back. Example: Tigers and Lions have breed in zoos that did not keep the large cats seperated

yah i've seen the picture of the "liger" quite interesting. but, this is nothing surprising because different dogs can also mate. similiar speicies with genetic makeup that are similiar enough can mate. This is an interesting notion because humans and apes are only about 2-4% different In science, there's a rule saying that different species can not breed with each other. Based on this "liger," this rule should either be changed or tiger and lions are simply miss labeled as two different species.

CODE · MUD Output

Back to the Bible; There must have been a settlement called Nod close to Eden that was inhabited by a humanoid race that was not the perfect race of man created by God through Adam

The Himalayan foothills of the Indian sub-continent have yielded evidence humans having lived there around two million years ago. It is therefore possible that humans were present in Sri Lanka from at least as early as one million years ago. The evidence stems from excavations conducted in coastal deposits near Bundala. Patirajawela yielded a small-flake stone tool industry from horizons dated to 125,000 to 75,000 BP, while Bundala-Wellegangoda had comparable material from ca. 80,000 BP 2 . These people made tools of quartz (and a few on chert) which are assignable to a Middle Palaeolithic complex (ibid.:252-4,458,688). Apart from such tools, no other vestiges of their culture have survived the ravages of time and tropical weathering: we do not know what these people looked like, although it can be guessed that they were early Homo sapiens somewhat akin to anatomically modern South Asians. Even the sizes of their settlement are not known due to the limited scale of the evaluation excavations; surface indications are ca. 50 square metres or less per site. That they lived by hunting and gathering is obvious and it is probable that this conformed to the pattern discernible in the activities of their descendants some 100,000 years later. Notice that these dates are way before the biblical acount in the genesis.
You can read the rest here: http://www.lankalibrary.com/geo/dera2.html

CODE · MUD Output

The Book of Numbers is the most boring book in the Bible. It is just a long list of people, who their children were, and the age they were at the time of their first born. It lists the decendents of Cain and Seth (Adam & Eve's 3rd. son). A comparasion of these two family lines proves quite interesting

"God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33) and yet, the book of numbers cant be anymore confusing. This is just simply too long so go here and read if you have time. http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/balaam.html to be honest, i didnt even read all of it because it was too long and i'm getting a bit tire.

CODE · MUD Output

Some meager evdience of these Giant Humans have been found, a few teeth, not enough to determin anything but a rough guess to their weight of apx. 500lbs. 
There is still evedience of this interbreeding today. Many humans have infertility problems today, more than our share when compaired to other animals on this planet. People are born with one or more physical aspects that resemble Nethanderal man more than modren humans.

I believe the 500lb remains you have suggested is the remain of the Homo sapiens neandertalensis. Infertility can not be arisen from what you suggests because if that was the case, they would not have been able to give rise to progeny in the first place. Infertility is most often observed interbreeding between closely related families not between seperate races. If a man were to mate with his sister, their children will most likely to be infertile. This is evolutionarily disavantaged. Even if you were to assume that the genes that are responsible for sexual reproduction are recessive genes that can hide in individuals and then resurfaces later on through chance, that possibility is still extremely low and uncommon. statistically speaking, such genes would have been eradicated millions of years ago before the apes.

Now lets just assume all my evidence and reasoning are incorrect. The bible is still unreliable because there is simply too much contradiction. If one part of the bible is wrong, how can we be so sure that the other parts are correct? For example: as far as i understand the earth is created 4.6 billion years ago but the bible suggests a far different date. If the bible gets this wrong, then what else is it wrong about?
---------------------------------------------------
In response to Izzy:

CODE · MUD Output

dinosaurs did not live 1,000,000 years ago, they lived around the time of adam and eve

I've actually heard this one over and over. Someone even told me that alligators or some sort of reptiles will grow to infinite size if they are not killed off by predators. All the "dinosaurs" that we have found are simply really big alligators and really big reptiles. This belief is wrong in so many ways that i dont even know where to begin. They totally neglect eveything about animal physiology, physics of carbon dating, and everything else in archeology.

CODE · MUD Output

  look at those claims and say ok, sure, if scientific proof on carbon dating is based upon a false assumption, ok, maybe the world is only 6,000 years old.

carbon dating is not based on false assumption. It may not be perfectly acurate but it can provide a very valuable time frame with 99.9% accuracy.

CODE · MUD Output

Buddism is an older religion (arguably) and if you stop, and look at all these older religions, and see if they have anything in common, they do

Buddhism sprouted from Hinduism. Hinduism came from the "west." Pretty much, all religions came from Egypt. As they travel away from egypt they transform into a new religion because of local influence. The prime example is Judaism. If you study eqyption mythology you see the similarity and how names got changed around when the Jews "left" egypt and headed for Mesopotamia.

CODE · MUD Output

i would be interested in hearing how the hindus and buddists believe the world came into being.

I used to have a book with the world major relgions and mythology but i gave it away to a friend and now i cant remember anything baout hinduism. And google doesnt seem to understand "The hinud genisis."
As for Buddhism. You might find it surprising to find that the Buddha said nothing about how the world came into being. When one of his followers asked him this question, he told him that he has no answers. He said that a man of religion can not adequately and accurately answer such questions and it was better left for the men of science who study those fields. A truely humble and honest man.

---------------------------
reponse to Thremp.

evolution does not explain how things came into being. It simply explains how things may have derived. One of the explaination is that living beings transform from one form to another. I think this is where Christianity and Science clash because this suggests that the genisis is wrong. Sure you may say that god created everything and then evolution took over as a mechanism designed by god into things that you observe today. But, if you truely understand the two views, you realize that they can not coexist. evolution suggests of millions of years and creationism suggests a few thousand years and a being called "God." You can not have both, it is either one or another. In the contemporary world, evolution seems to be on the upperhand but nothing is absolute. The dark ages happend twice before, who is there to say that it will not happen again.

All the knowledge that we have not may become nothing but a DARK LEGACY

Avatar

Feb 26, 2006 · 03:12 #25

Lingolas,

You truly do not understand either view.

BTW: Humans and great apes are around 1% different in genetic code. 2-4% is around how different we are from the majority of mammals.

Dual-Avatar

Feb 26, 2006 · 23:58 #26

What i said about Sri Lanka is contradictory. It would only make sense if these humanoid inhabitants are neanthertals. however, i have never heard of them existed any besides europe.

Dual-Avatar

Feb 27, 2006 · 05:05 #27

1. Evolution seems more likely to be accurate
2. Numerous
3. AS in IT, working on BS in physics/minor in mathematics
4. 21
5. I cannot state which is correct, if I could I would probably be omniscient and therefore prove creationism accurate, but evolution appears to be the more credible theory. Evolution seems to be the best logical solution that humanity has yet arrived at with the knowledge and resources available.

Creationism, on the other hand, rejects logic and wisdom, instead relying on the gullibility of children, humans' desire for acceptance, guilt over "sins", fear of "eternal torment", and other exploitable aspects of human nature.

I don't presume to label one theory as "accurate" and one as "innacurate"; for all I know there COULD be some sadistic god who deliberaltey creates flawed beings and then tosses them into an eternally burning lake of fire as punishment for those flaws, but I see no convincing reason to believe it is so.

Tri-Avatar

Feb 27, 2006 · 14:56 #28

question...

whats omniscient mean...

multiple sciences?

Avatar

Feb 27, 2006 · 20:55 #29

Lingolas

Thank you for adding some detail to my post, however it seems that you are not up to date on the lastest genitic research. A world wide study of human genitics has been conducted for a number of years, and the results have only recently been released. The common sense statement you made, "Homo Sapiens first appeared about 120, 000 years ago in a line of evolution; therefore it is not possible to have a common ancesstor at 60000 on the time line as suggested." Has been proven wrong, as many common sense explainations have been in the past. The study did offer several explainations as to how this unusal result came about. War, famine, and disease could have wiped out most bloodlines, as well as the common practice in the past of rulers haveing many wives and offspring of their line. Other surprises in the study show that 1 in 7 men from China are decendent from Gangus Khan, and that is not far back in history. In truth they do not know why we all seem to have a common male ancestor only 60,000 years in the past, but that is what the evidence points to.
Thank you also for making my point that humanoid people were living in groups before the biblical account in genesis, "Notice that these dates are way before the biblical acount in the genesis." although that was not your intent I think. I do not blame you for not delving to deep into the book of numbers and instead looking to other sources. I had to write out the seperate bloodlines side by side for a comparision, a long a tedious process.
The teeth that belong to a 500lb humanoid were first discovered in the middle east, they were not teeth from Homo sapiens neandertalensis as you suggested. However there is evedience that suggests we interbreed with them also. The lack of more evidence for this race suggest that they were few in number, and quickly died out, for the reasons you and I both listed. however you said "statistically speaking, such genes would have been eradicated millions of years ago before the apes." But I never suggested that they were an evolved species that existed that long ago, but rather a short lived abberation that was not geniticly viable.
Lastly you said "The bible is still unreliable because there is simply too much contradiction." But no more of a contradiction than science has been in its short history. The number of long held scientific truths that have overturned in my lifetime are too vast to recount here. In just the last week, a fossil was found of a otter-like mammal that lived at the time of the dinosaurs, vastly pushing back the time that larger mammals lived on this planet.And many discoveries have been made by using the bible as a guide to know where to dig. Also many of the so called Bible contradictions only seem to be contradictions due to taking qoutes out of text, lack of understanding, and lack of desire to research the bible texts by people who don't believe and only wish to find fault in it. As humans are prone to do, we color what we see by what we expect to see. Even the Big Bang theory has sicentific contradictions in it, but thats alright, its just a theory.
Instead of fighting about it, can't we all agree to disagree. After all, we will all know the truth soon enough, when we die. Untill then to each their own.

Retired Caretaker

Feb 27, 2006 · 22:52 #30

hey good job, that was good reading

that's the thing about theories, tomorrow there may be a better one

Avatar

Mar 02, 2006 · 16:43 #31

Isabelle wrote:
hey good job, that was good reading

that's the thing about theories, tomorrow there may be a better one

The blessing and curse of science. Whats truth today is tomorrow's blatant fallacy...

A more worrisome corollary is that medicine is a science.

Dual-Avatar

Mar 02, 2006 · 17:22 #32

aureal brought up a good point. Science has always been as much contradictory as the bible. I suppose choosing to believe in science is as much of a religion with a different set of rules. Instead of following rules set out by the bible, we choose to follow rules set out by scientists. I suppose people will believe what makes the most sense to them, that is either logic or the supernatural.

Who knows anything about the string theory?

Avatar

Mar 02, 2006 · 18:41 #33

Enough to make myself look like a fool if I got into a conversation with someone about real string theory.

I like the idea and think eventually it'll be proven when our science goes that far, but now the proofs of it are idiotic wrt there are numerous that are mathematically true.

Avatar

Mar 03, 2006 · 16:01 #34

I think part of the problem is with our school system, at least in the U.S. The differance between a scientific theory and a scientific law is glossed over at best. Theories are taught showing the evidence supporting it, but not the evidence against it. Logic as a course is not available till collage for most students. We underestimate the ability of our children to reason, and limit the scope of knowledge available to them. Yet after graduating high school we expect them to make informed decisions when it is their turn to lead the next generation. If you never question the way things are, they aren't likely to change.

Creationism is a theory:
Evolutionism is a theory:
You can even combine them for a theory that both are right.

The evidence is there to support any of the above, and many more views beside.
Look at the evidence yourself, and choose for yourself, or come up with your own theory as I have.

Given the rate at which technology and the world is changing, we need to give our children the tools they will need to deal with the problems in the future. I know, I am a real doom and gloom party crasher. But I believe that the more informed people are, the more likely it is that we can all find a way to coexist peacefully. Even if it means more homework.

Avatar

Mar 07, 2006 · 15:49 #35

The other part of the problem rests with the organized religions. Now this is a touchy subject, so I will not mention any specific religions here, so as not to offend. But many religious groups do not require any schooling or training to become a minister. Most of the ones that do require an education, only teach the distorted views of their own sects. Many preachers have never read the bible completly. I even know one minister of a large church who does not believe in God at all. He is a psychologest who thinks religion is a usefull mental crutch. As a minister he gets to use his degree, and does not have to worry about malpractice suits if he goofs. Of course his congregation is unaware of his personal beliefs.

These ill-informed preachers than pass on their distorted view to common belivers who swallow it hook, line, and sinker just because they are the minster the congregation look up to for guidence. To compound this problem, through out history, people in power have sought to use the bible as a means of controlling the common people. Just compare any english bible with the oringinal Greek and Hebrew versions for some interesting insight into this form of deception. Of course the people who did the King James translations said such changes were done so as not to confuse the less educated readers! After a few thousand years of this treatment, is it any wonder that many people have a distorted view of God and the bible.

My only suggestion is that everyone should make up their own mind. Read the bible without the pre-concived notions you were taught, if possible. If you have access to a transliteration version of the bible, use it. A transliteration version is one that has the oringinal Greek or Hebrew text, than a literial word for word translation below it, and the modren translation below that. Even if this does not open your eyes to new aspects of the bible, at least you can comment on it yourself, from your own knowledge, instead of spouting someones else's prejudical views.

Avatar

Mar 07, 2006 · 22:28 #36

Arureal wrote:
The other part of the problem rests with the organized religions. Now this is a touchy subject, so I will not mention any specific religions here, so as not to offend. But many religious groups do not require any schooling or training to become a minister. Most of the ones that do require an education, only teach the distorted views of their own sects. Many preachers have never read the bible completly. I even know one minister of a large church who does not believe in God at all. He is a psychologest who thinks religion is a usefull mental crutch. As a minister he gets to use his degree, and does not have to worry about malpractice suits if he goofs. Of course his congregation is unaware of his personal beliefs.

These ill-informed preachers than pass on their distorted view to common belivers who swallow it hook, line, and sinker just because they are the minster the congregation look up to for guidence. To compound this problem, through out history, people in power have sought to use the bible as a means of controlling the common people. Just compare any english bible with the oringinal Greek and Hebrew versions for some interesting insight into this form of deception. Of course the people who did the King James translations said such changes were done so as not to confuse the less educated readers! After a few thousand years of this treatment, is it any wonder that many people have a distorted view of God and the bible.

My only suggestion is that everyone should make up their own mind. Read the bible without the pre-concived notions you were taught, if possible. If you have access to a transliteration version of the bible, use it. A transliteration version is one that has the oringinal Greek or Hebrew text, than a literial word for word translation below it, and the modren translation below that. Even if this does not open your eyes to new aspects of the bible, at least you can comment on it yourself, from your own knowledge, instead of spouting someones else's prejudical views.

The Bible is not the only means to understanding God and religion. The first people who wrote this stuff down used it only as a tool and it shouldn't be recognized as the be all and end all of religion.

Especially items from the Old Testament and alot of the metaphorical stories.

Avatar

Mar 08, 2006 · 00:43 #37

Thremp: I do not mean to slight other religons in this thread, but creationism as it is used in this thread, I took to mean the biblical view. So I stuck with the Bible. However personaly I encourage people to explore other religions. My father was Buddist, my mother followed her Native American beliefs, the rest of my family was stout Roman Catholic, so I have had a vaired background. Plus if we included other religions in this thread, my posts would become even longer, and I know you all don't want that.

So in that vein, here is another short post for you all to consider.

The Big Bang Theory is a widely held belief about the origin of the universe because nearly all of the evidence points to it. Most people are familiar with the basics of it. Let me quote Secrets of Nature, The Birth of the Universe here. " Imagine all matter as one single mass, all light concentrated into one source...The universe as we understand it was born from a single initial point, began expanding, and slowly took shape." This point is refered to as a singlarity, and the region around it as a black hole. The theory is good, however the problems are in the details.

The Big Bang was started by the mother and father of all black holes, as it contained all of the mass and engery in the universe. Gee, it almost sounds like the defination of God I was taught as a child, omni-potent and omni present. Meaning unlimited power, and existing beyond time and space. All the engery in the universe was in this point, and as the universe did not exist yet, neither did time or space. In the begining was God.

Then for some unknown reason, the impossable happened and this singlarity exploded. Completly disreguarding the laws of science. For as everyone knows, nothing can escape the pull of a black hole, and this was the greatest black hole of all time and space. Gee, sounds like God said, Let there be light, and it was so. Right now that is as good an answer as you can get, cause science can not explain this point.

But now we come to the parts science can explain, sort of. As the universe expanded, quarks, protons, neutrinos, and electrons were formed during the first 3 minutes, later as temperatures fell the first atoms formed. no problem right? Wrong. If the expanding universe had continued unabatted, no matter could have formed, and the universe would be empty of all matter. Something had to hold back the expanding ball of energy, to allow the energy density to reach the point where matter would form. the timing and duration of this restraint on the expanding universe is critical. Yet it was accomplised with perfect timing to allow matter to form in the right proportions, to have the universe we know today. Science can not explain how the expanding universe was held in check breifly, only that it had to happen. Gee, sounds like God put the squeeze on creation, just for us.

The next problem with the creation of matter is this. When matter is formed in this manner, it will consist of equal parts matter and anti-matter. We have proved this much in the lab. By rights, this squeeze that created matter should have made equal parts of matter and anti-matter, which would have wiped each other out, still leaving a universe devoid of matter and life. As we can plainly see, this is not what happened. Gee, again it seems that we must seek the answer to this in religion rather than science. Maybe God put all that anti-matter into the first normal size blackholes, cool move.

If, as the bible says, in the begining was God. Then it follows that the only building material for creation was God him(her)self. Thus all of this vast universe is but a part of God. And as we are made from the matter present in the universe, we are truely the sons and daughters of God. Open your mind to the concept that God could be something far greater than the limited view of God we grew up with. Or perhaps our ancesters knew this, and religion was the only way to express these truths to early man who lacked the scientifc understanding or the vocabulary to grasp such concepts. If memory serves me, ancient Greek had less than 500 root words, and Hebrew less than a thousand. Religion is mans attempt to understand the universe and his place in it. Science is mans attempt to understand the universe and his place in it. Religions that do not stand up to close inspection by believers die off over time, replaced by one that fits the obserable facts. Scientific theories that do not stand up to close inspection by other researchers die off over time, replaced by one that fits the obserable facts. The two fields are not that different. Science just does this process faster, we hope. The size and endurance of the worlds great religions, plus the number of other religions that converted to them over time, should suggest that they do a good job of explaining the universe and mans place in it for believers.

I could go on, but I have ranted long enough to bore most people, and out-rage the rest. Let me know what you think about this post. After all, its was supposed to make you think and question things.

Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies

"I reject your reality, and subsitute my own." Myth Buster Adam Savage

Dual-Avatar

Mar 08, 2006 · 03:34 #38

first of all, it was a very nice post. I enjoy reading it very much. those that skip it should go back and read it.

2ndly, I found serveral claims that you made where I can potentially attack, but I would need to do more research and talk to some experts in the field of physics...like my physics professor. Nuitari, i believe physics is your field of study isnt it? what do you have to say about this?

Avatar

Mar 08, 2006 · 16:54 #39

I neglected to mention my other reference for this post "The Universe in a Nutshell by Steven Hawking" for those who wish to look into this more deeply.
Lingolas, I am glad you enjoyed the post, I knew it was going to be long, so I tried to make it interesting and not put readers asleep. I am also happy to hear that you wish to look closer, and talk to others about my post. I consider that a compliment.
I look foward to hearing Nuitari's response. I only have a few college level physics courses under my belt, although it is a hobby of mine. So I would enjoy hearing the opinion of someone more qualified in the field than myself.

Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies

Lowbie

Mar 09, 2006 · 00:40 #40

There are lots and lots of evidence supporting evolution. If one takes a biology for majors course with a 'good' professor, this will be taught properly.

Rather than lecturing extensively what evolution says, I'll just post some false statements commonly thought of about evolution:

1. Man evolved from ape.
False, man did not evolve from ape. The theory states that man and ape have a common ancestor. Those pictures you've probably seen where a little monkey walks and becomes a figure of a man are very inaccurate.

2. Evolution is just a theory.
This is one of the most misconceptions. Do you reject the gravity theory? How about the cell theory? Theories have lots and lots of evidence. The correct term for saying something is a guess would be a hypothesis, and today, we call evolution a theory. Science should not be a 'pick which theory is true' situation.

Look at past history of Galileo. Religion likes to 'make up' false facts about the unknowns. The church punished him for saying planets revolve around the sun. Science and technology advances and are able to fills in unknowns, then religion either admits defeat, or denies it. In most cases, it's the ladder.

Think why people go to church. Is it because they want to? Or was this traditional? People tend to reject information that threaten their identity without any thorough consideration.

Another un-likeable question is the question of which god? Is it the Baptist's God? Is it the Catholic's idea of a God? How about Jew's? Is it Buddha? Such mass religions existence should indicate something is incomplete.

Which do I support? The uneducated assumption with similar topic is that one must pick a side. Any unbias person can manage to incorperate both religion and science into their life. Neither science nor religion is currently able to fill in all gaps of knowledge.

However, science is still developing.

Avatar

Mar 09, 2006 · 06:19 #41

Thank you Jerardo

You caught the main point I was trying to make. You said "Any unbias person can manage to incorperate both religion and science into their life."

All I can add to that statement is, or at least allow that there is room for both, reguardless of personal beliefs.

Unbias is the key point, it allows you to be objective, one of the keystones of science. However with humans, this is not allways the case.

You said that science is still devloping, that is true. I tried to point out that religion is still devloping also, the pace is just much slower, general speaking. Even establised religions do so. The oringinal holy texts may remain the same, but mans interpetation of them changes. You mentioned the main reasons for religions slow change, tradition, and "People tend to reject information that threaten their identity without any thorough consideration." Or in other words, they have a bias viewpoint. See above paragraph.

What happened to Galileo was a shame. On the other hand, for how many thousands of years have doctors and other healers, bleed people to death, all for good reasons. We all are human, and make mistakes. In all these cases, people disreguarded the evidence. Why, because they had a bias viewpoint. See first paragraph.

You hit on another subject I touched on. "Another un-likeable question is the question of which god? Is it the Baptist's God? Is it the Catholic's idea of a God? How about Jew's? Is it Buddha? Such mass religions existence should indicate something is incomplete." You Mean They Are Not The Same God.

Gasp. Even in the strictist historical context, several religions and their many offshoots, all share the same God. They just fight over the details, and the correct way to worship. In a broader outlook, you could say that all or nearly all religions share the same God, they just fight over the details. The only thing that makes it a touchy topic is because many people have a bias viewpoint. See first paragraph.

It is hard not to be biased, it seems to be a human trait. I try not to be biased, and look at life objectively, I am a scientist at heart. But, I am human, so it is not an easy task, I fail at times, and I have even been known to be wrong.

Science is very usefull, and has taught use much about the universe, and our place in it. But it can not explain everything at this time, or in the forseeable future. Untill it can, religion will fill that void for those people who seek answers to the questions science cannot answer.

Or some other explaination. Just today on T.V., (wish I had wrote this down), some guy used some of the genetic evidence I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, and came up with a far differant conclusion. He believes that a race from outer space came here and geneticly modified humans to use as slaves. They did this because they needed gold to fix their polluted atmosphere. Now, where as I do not agree with him, the evidence can be interpreted to support genitic modification instead of cross breeding. Who am I to say if he is right or wrong. Besides, he is making far more money off his theory, than I am with mine. Let's be open minded and unbias in our viewpoints. See first paragraph.

Lowbie

Mar 09, 2006 · 17:55 #42

Arureal wrote:
You hit on another subject I touched on. "Another un-likeable question is the question of which god? Is it the Baptist's God? Is it the Catholic's idea of a God? How about Jew's? Is it Buddha? Such mass religions existence should indicate something is incomplete." You Mean They Are Not The Same God. Gasp. Even in the strictist historical context, several religions and their many offshoots, all share the same God. They just fight over the details, and the correct way to worship. In a broader outlook, you could say that all or nearly all religions share the same God, they just fight over the details. The only thing that makes it a touchy topic is because many people have a bias viewpoint. See first paragraph.
.

That's just a few commonly known religions here in the North America. Of those I mentioned, only the Baptist's and the Catholics share the same God of what's known to be Jesus. Even then, they strictly share different ideas. For example, the Catholics worship the being the Virgin Mary as being one of the 'top ranked', however, the Baptists do not think much of her other than a tool whom humanly gave birth to Jesus to come to Earth. Thus, the Catholics come closer to having a "division" of power. The Baptist also believe that all those who claim to believe in Jesus go to heaven; some may find this irrational. There's also the subject of purgatory. These are just the few examples of their differences.

The Jews have a completely different god all together. They do not believe that Jesus is the "true" god.

Generally speaking, my strong point isn't the study of the numerous types of religions, nonetheless, their existence should make one question "why so many religions", "how do I know my relgion is right", "what makes other religions different", etc. These answers probably will not come easy to those who are not arrogant. Some may find satisfactory answers by doing thorough research on the history.

Avatar

Mar 09, 2006 · 20:13 #43

Strictly speaking, Three of the worlds main religions, and their many offshoots and sects, share the same God. The Hebrews, or using your term Jews. All christian religions, and yes that includes Baptist's and Catholics, plus way too many others to list here. And Islam, and its various sects.

The Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the savior promised to the Jews by God. The Jews, for the most part do not belive this. Although there is one Hebrew sect that does believe this, they just prefer to keep their old traditions. Several other Hebrew sects do believe that Jesus was a great teacher of the word of God, just not the savior. Some of the early Islamic sects also believed that Jesus was the savior promised to the world, but I am not sure if the current sects still believe this. See the section on how holy texts are reinterpeted over time in my earlier post. Yes these three religions have differances of opinion, but they still worship the same God. Also note. Jesus never claimed to be God, and got upset when such things were suggested. "Nay, do not call me good, for there is none that are good except God"

This extends to other lesser known religions as well. As a Native American, I may not worship the Creator in the same manner as a white man. Just because we chose to worship differently does not mean we worship a different God altogether. To each their own I say.

"Why so many religions" you ask. That is easy. Because there are so many different people, from different backgounds and enviroments, with differant value systems. As a Native American, I have differant values than a someone from an urban area. Both of us will have differant values than someone from a poor overcrowded country, ect. These differant values will affect how we choose to worship God. Different religions appeal to different people.

"How do I know my religion is right" That is a very personal question that only the individual can answer. If you are asking yourself this question, than perhaps your religion is not answering the issues that are at the core of your being, so you might want to look around. I spent a long time on this road of thought, but because it is so personal, my journey may not be of use to another.

Now not all religions worship the One God. There are some that worship more than one God, and some that do not have a God at all in the normal sense.

Do not get caught up and confused in the details of each sects beliefs, unless you truely wish to understand them, or wish to try and convert them.

The disscussion of the different religions deserves its own thread, as it is to vast a subject to share room with the topic of this thread. If you or others wish to talk about this in detail, than a new thread should be started for this topic.

Newbie

Apr 02, 2006 · 16:58 #44

I use to believe in evolution when i was younger but that was before i got to see some of these so called "Facts".. There are so many you can see for yourself on a website called http://www.drdino.com i think not sure.. But when i seen some of his infomation and the facts he had i just had to check on them

Hes right, Carbon dateing is not reliable, volcanic rocks taken from a moutian that they knew blew 100 years ago dated to be 6000 years old , Lots of other crap like that .. btw its not him that did it , he has schools, collages and companys doing this stuff that just dont make the reports public (MIT,harverd so on)

I believe what he says where he says Evolution should not be taught in schools only because it has nothing really to do with learning the human body in biololdy(sp?) They still have facts in the school books which were proven WRONG 100 years ago but they keep printing it because they dont want to cast shadows of doubt on this Thery there baseing everything on, If in fact we came from mud we dont have to answer for our crimes and have no one to judge us but ourselfs and the goverment .. If we came from a god we would have to answer to him and obey him not the nation..its all about control

Its funny i am saying this because i am not sure what i believe, all i know is that evolution is nothing but a lie and people are covering it up and i dont like that , i dont claim to know where we came from but its not that .. check the site and watch his movies he makes way to much sense ..its scary

He says Evolution is a religion and i believe it .

Tri-Avatar

Apr 02, 2006 · 17:58 #45

Alright, that crosses the line. Religion is one thing, but blatantly regarding well known scientific theories as false is quite another.

Yes, evolution is a theory. Not "just a theory." If you are saying that, then GRAVITY is "just a theory" as well. There is huge piles of evidence that supports evolution, the most important of which is that scientists and humand SEE it, every day. If you want examples I can give you limitless ones.

There comes a point when you need to seperate religion and science. Evolution is taught in school because it is the explanation of how lifeforms change over time. Evolution is NOT an explanation as to how life originated, or anything like that. Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Denying the existance of evolution is incredibly ignorant. How do you think dog breeds came to be? Selective breeding, isolating traits.

You simply cannot deny evolution. A common misconception is that humans "evolved from apes". No. Only somebody with little to no understanding of evolution would say that. The correct thing to say would be that humans evolved from the same common ancestor as apes. No species is any more evolved than the other.

Go read up on evolution. It is not untrue, and it is not fake. Having a religion is fine, normal, and good for your spirtual and emotional well being. But denying science at the same time is not healthy at all.

Dual-Avatar

Apr 02, 2006 · 19:58 #46

Even if evolution IS wrong, which it probably isn't, making an effort to study and correctly understand life and the universe is far more laudible than abandoning critical thinking and assuming that a fairy tale your parents told you is automatically true. Evolution is our best effort to understand how we came to be as we are now, Creationism is a myth that survives by indoctrination of young children and their inevitable and neccessary belief of whatever their parents tell them.

Children believe Santa Claus is real until their parents or someone else they trust tells them otherwise. Children believe the Easter Bunny is real until their parents or someone else they trust tells them otherwise. If their parents and society didn't tell them those figures were imaginary, they would continue believing in them for all of their lives. If their parents and their social peers consistently told them later in their childhoods that God wasn't real, they wouldn't believe in him either.

Retired Caretaker

Apr 02, 2006 · 21:09 #47

Getting off topic a little, has anyone been watching Southpark, i guess they decided to wage war on Tom Cruise and his scientology (freaks)

Did anyone happen to catch the last part of the episode where they had tom cruise in the closet and he wouldnt come out? I missed the last half of it, and wondered how they finished it.

Avatar

Apr 03, 2006 · 04:23 #48

weems wrote:
Alright, that crosses the line. Religion is one thing, but blatantly regarding well known scientific theories as false is quite another.

Yes, evolution is a theory. Not "just a theory." If you are saying that, then GRAVITY is "just a theory" as well. There is huge piles of evidence that supports evolution, the most important of which is that scientists and humand SEE it, every day. If you want examples I can give you limitless ones.

There comes a point when you need to seperate religion and science. Evolution is taught in school because it is the explanation of how lifeforms change over time. Evolution is NOT an explanation as to how life originated, or anything like that. Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Denying the existance of evolution is incredibly ignorant. How do you think dog breeds came to be? Selective breeding, isolating traits.

You simply cannot deny evolution. A common misconception is that humans "evolved from apes". No. Only somebody with little to no understanding of evolution would say that. The correct thing to say would be that humans evolved from the same common ancestor as apes. No species is any more evolved than the other.

Go read up on evolution. It is not untrue, and it is not fake. Having a religion is fine, normal, and good for your spirtual and emotional well being. But denying science at the same time is not healthy at all.

You're confused. Evolution is fact. When I take mexican dirt weed and produce AK-47 with it my "Weed" has evolved. What is dubbed the "Theory of Evolution" is a bunch of skeletons that they pieces that people and monkies came from a common ancestor.

I suggest you realize what the argument is talking about before talking about how you're the pinnacle of 5 billion years of evolution.

Newbie

Apr 03, 2006 · 08:09 #49

I am not one to debate this subject , Before you stand your ground on this matter you should check out kens site and Tapes if you can find him .. What will it hurt?,

Please rememeber some of these "Facts" you Claim to have for evolution were chances are lies still written in your texts books , Go to a high school and LOOK for your self and see that proven wrong theroys are still listed in there books , Such asgills on a baby in its early stages of life is a sign of our fish ansestry or what ever , Look it up on the net the nation sicence int or what ever STATES that its WRONG, Along with other things they dont tell publicly or try to even fix ..

Ken destorys the religion of evolution with facts, paper works and lots of data from books even from other evolutioists, Hes not the one going "Beilieve just because i do " he gives more true info then the goverment so far and i believe him more because i checked myself

Tri-Avatar

Apr 03, 2006 · 10:32 #50

I already looked at his site. It's garbage. He failed to 'destroy' the important fact of evolution which is: we observe it on a daily basis. I told you, if you want examples, I will start listing limitless ones.

Retired Caretaker

Apr 03, 2006 · 15:10 #51

in a better world, i would be an advocate for evolution and creationism being taught in the schools impartially, and allowing people to draw whatever truths they could from both.

neither should be discounted, and (IMO) neither should be followed blindly... it's how we get into trouble

Avatar

Apr 03, 2006 · 16:49 #52

weems wrote:
I already looked at his site. It's garbage. He failed to 'destroy' the important fact of evolution which is: we observe it on a daily basis. I told you, if you want examples, I will start listing limitless ones.

Please do. I'd like to see the common ancestor for modern primates followed by skeletal/complimentary evidence of divergent evolution at work.

Tri-Avatar

Apr 03, 2006 · 19:13 #53

Isabelle wrote:
in a better world, i would be an advocate for evolution and creationism being taught in the schools impartially, and allowing people to draw whatever truths they could from both.

neither should be discounted, and (IMO) neither should be followed blindly... it's how we get into trouble

Here is the first problem. Evolution is the science of how life changes over time, NOT an exaplantion of how the universe started. Therefore, it is not even competing with evolution. I know many very religious people who accept evolution. Evolution is a topic for a biology class because it is a biological mechanism. God creating the universe, is not. I'm not saying that it isn't true. What I am saying is that it isn't science, and it especially isn't biology. If you want it to be taught in schools, fine, but it certainly doesn't belong in a science class, let alone a biology class.

Thremp wrote:
Please do. I'd like to see the common ancestor for modern primates followed by skeletal/complimentary evidence of divergent evolution at work.

I can't give you a perfect evolutionary model for any species, let alone humans. It is hard work to extract all that information and continiously add to the fossil record. We are getting better at it all the time, however.

But honestly, even debating this is stupid as hell. You want to see divergent evolution at work? Grow a garden. Breed dogs. Introduce poison steadily into an insects environment, and watch what happens to the insects, then compare what you have to what exists elsewhere. Evolution is a very very slow, steady process, and there is nothing mystical about the mechanisms.

It's simple, really. There is a pool of traits that a lifeform is capable of having. The traits describe everything about this lifeform, but for now lets keep it very simple, with things like size. Let us say that you breed dogs, and you want them to be as small as possible. Which ones would you continiously breed? The large ones, or the small ones? The small ones, obviously. Why do you think you have a lot of the same traits as your parnets? You get half of your genes from each one. So the lifeforms that die do not pass on their genes. Do you see where I am going with this?

Thats half of it, anyway. The other half is mutations. We know mutations happen because we have observed them. A random copying error can produce a slight variance in a species. This can be good or bad. If it is bad, the species probably won't get a chance to reproduce, and therefore the trait will not get passed on. If the trait is good, it increases the likelyhood of the creature breeding, and therefore passes the mutation on.

Now, take those two processes which aren't really denyable, and then spread them out over BILLIONS of years, and you get a lot of change.

Avatar

Apr 03, 2006 · 19:58 #54

So basically what you're saying is "I know evolution occurs, but I can't prove that people came from a common ancestor that also developed the other higher primates."

So in other words you're saying that things evolve (duh), but you can't provide any proof for the evolutionism vs. creationism debate as in how humans were created whether it be from a great primordial stew were we evolved from the muck or whether a greater power created us.

Thanks. I was confused why you were acting like a know-it-all with you "limitless proof" when in fact you present no proof to the matter at hand.

Tri-Avatar

Apr 03, 2006 · 20:10 #55

Thremp wrote:
So basically what you're saying is "I know evolution occurs, but I can't prove that people came from a common ancestor that also developed the other higher primates."

So in other words you're saying that things evolve (duh), but you can't provide any proof for the evolutionism vs. creationism debate as in how humans were created whether it be from a great primordial stew were we evolved from the muck or whether a greater power created us.

Thanks. I was confused why you were acting like a know-it-all with you "limitless proof" when in fact you present no proof to the matter at hand.

There is limitless proof. Everything I listed occurs.

Yes, I am saying that things evolve. Perhaps you are suggesting that evolution DOESN'T occur, but instead there is a mysterious force that changes lifeforms in an identical fashion to evolution, with identical results.

I never once stated that evolution explains the origin of the universe, and I am pretty sure that I pointed that out in numerous different posts on numerous occaisions, specifically stating that evolution doesn't even try to explain that.

What you are talking about is a big bang debate versus creationism, or perhaps some sort of origins of life theory war, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is me trying to explain to Snowflayke that evolution does indeed happen.

Dual-Avatar

Apr 04, 2006 · 03:59 #56

To Snowflayke,

CODE · MUD Output

I am not one to debate this subject , Before you stand your ground on this matter you should check out kens site and Tapes if you can find him .. What will it hurt?,

now that we have seen it. Perhaps it is your turn to read the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin..what will it hurt?

CODE · MUD Output

Please rememeber some of these "Facts" ...

Do you know what a fact is?

CODE · MUD Output

...you Claim to have for evolution were chances are lies still written in your texts books...

which book are you refering to? be specific. There are million of books out there validating evolution.

CODE · MUD Output

Go to a high school and LOOK for your self and see that proven wrong theroys are still listed in there books...

Highschool texts are wrong all over the place. Not just evolution, but in many other subjects as well. Let's not forget that those books are written either by a single individual or a small group of people. It is the board of education in that district who recommends that book to their students. you can not say that a fish is not a fish because a few scales are missing on its body.

CODE · MUD Output

Such asgills on a baby in its early stages of life is a sign of our fish ansestry or what ever , Look it up on the net the nation sicence int or what ever STATES that its WRONG, Along with other things they dont tell publicly or try to even fix ..

I dont even know what you are talking about so i dont know how to respond.

CODE · MUD Output

Ken destorys the religion of evolution with facts, paper works and lots of data from books even from other evolutioists, Hes not the one going "Beilieve just because i do " he gives more true info then the goverment so far and i believe him more because i checked myself

The point of having a debate is so that you can make claims and rebuttal using evidence that you have gathered from your research. It is pointless to tell the person who you are debating to go read something else. Are we debating with you or are we debating with Kenneth R. Miller?

CODE · MUD Output

Hes right, Carbon dateing is not reliable, volcanic rocks taken from a moutian that they knew blew 100 years ago dated to be 6000 years old , Lots of other crap like that

The case that you provided suggests that carbon dating is not 100% reliable. If you know anything about carbon dating and how it works you would have realize this already. Carbon dating is simply measuring how much carbon has decayed. Since we know the exact rate of carbon isotope, we can estimate the approximate time. Despite all of this, there is are statistical measures to reinforce the degree of confidence in all findings. Denying the relative effectiveness and the accuracy of carbon dating is statically flaw.

CODE · MUD Output

 believe what he says where he says Evolution should not be taught in schools only because it has nothing really to do with learning the human body in biololdy

i believe the word is biology.
anyway, the whole foundation of biology rests on evolution. Evolution is the pinacle of biology. We would not be able to understand HIV and treat it so successfully if we didnt understand evolution. The whole branche of human anatomy and human physiology would be nothing more than medival witchdotors without evolution. Ecologists would not understand half of what they understand without evolution.

CODE · MUD Output

which were proven WRONG 100 years ago but they keep printing it because they dont want to cast shadows of doubt on this Thery there baseing everything on

I can think of a few holy books that was proven wrong a long long long time ago and yet they still make copies of them and is still themost sold book. Religion is about control; science on the other hand seeks the truth, whatever that truth may be. If science supports God with overwhelping evidence then scientists would not hesitate to accept his supposed doctrines. Up till, this isnt the case :p

-------------------------------------------------

to thremp,

CODE · MUD Output

Please do. I'd like to see the common ancestor for modern primates followed by skeletal/complimentary evidence of divergent evolution at work.

I'll look more into primates and see what kind of findings we have out there. As for evidence of evolution that we witness, feel, tested, combated against, engineered drugs against, made mathematical models of... is HIV. Believe it or not, but HIV evolves. I can go on and on about HIV but HIV is a prime example of evolution in progress. You may ask why HIV and not primates. Well, if you understand evolution you wouldnt be asking me that question

CODE · MUD Output

When I take mexican dirt weed and produce AK-47 with it my "Weed" has evolved. What is dubbed the "Theory of Evolution" is a bunch of skeletons that they pieces that people and monkies came from a common ancestor.

bad analogy. You seem to produce alot of claims and sarcasm but absolutely no evidence and not even funny.
------------------------------------------------------

To Weems,

CODE · MUD Output

 I told you, if you want examples, I will start listing limitless ones.[code]
Science is all about experiments. If you can not demonstrate it through experiments it is not science. I'm not kidding, this is the golden rule. I'm sure you already know this. In light of this, I like you to provide me a single experiement where one spiecies has successfully evolved into another. When you provide your experiement, keep in the mind the definition of "spiecies."
-----------------------------------------------------

to isabelle,
no, give me the season and episode number and i'll tell you, i have all the episodes but havent seen most of them. 

------------------------------------------------------

I just want to point out that evolution is not about apes turning into humans. Evolution is a bigger picture. Evolution is about adaptation that results in changes based on natural selection. It is about herediatary and different fitness between organisms. It is about surval of the fittess. Evolution is about how the living world changes through time. Based on what i've said, and what evidence we have found it is suggested that humans arise from apes. What is interesting is that the people who did the findings and the people who have the most authority on the subject agrees that this is PROBABLY true. On the other hand, many people who dont know squat, uneducated, close minded[not refering to anyone here] are so ready to fight this theory with everything they got. In the end, they can only provide untangible opinions and their own philosophy.

Dual-Avatar

Apr 04, 2006 · 04:35 #57

ok here's how evolution 101 for those that dont know. If you think you truely know how evolution works then you can just ignore this post.

lets imagine a population of roaches. These roaches craw all over Tarsonis Square. These roaches are made up of all colors and sizes. There are red ones, white ones black ones. They come in small size, medium size and large size. Before humans settle in Tarsonis there was only celeborn flying up in the air dancing with Zenpin. Once in awhile, celeborn or zenpin would fly down to the ground and eat a roach just because they feel like it. This doesnt reallly effect the roach population much so the roach population continues to populate and of course they mutate (a biological thing) and produce new colors. One day Lingolas moves into Tarsonis and decided to make Tarsonis Square his primary hangout spot. Everytime when Lingolas the giant troll walks around Tarsonis Square he steps on the roaches because he has very large feet. The slow roaches that didnt get out of the way in time got stepped on and died. Also the big ones that couldnt fit between the cracks also died. After a few hundrew years, only the small roaches were left. Since the big ones that carry the genes to grow big are dead before they can pass on their genes they become extinct, on the other hand, the small roaches that were able to escape death able to pass on their genes. After a long long time, most of the population is made up of small roaches. There are still some medium size roaches around but not much, but virtually all the large ones went extinct. You see how large/medium/small roaches became only small and medium roaches? If you fast forward a few million years under the same condition, the medium roaches will eventually become extinct as well because they keep on getting stepped on more often than the small roaches.
Now imagine that before lingolas moved in, Celeborn flew down to the ground and collected a bunch of roaches and brought back to his house in the enchanted forest and kept them as pet. The roaches at Celeborn's house would be so much different when compared to the roaches at Tarsonis Square a few million years later. The roaches at celeborn's house would be in all sizes while the roaches at tarsonis squares are tiny.

Of course i used size as an example of how one thing can change into something else. In the real world, it is alot more complex giving a wide variety pressure.

What happens if celeborn likes to eat only white roaches? those white roaches are gonna go extinct really fast. What if the gene that code the color white sits next to the gene that code for wings? You would start to notice that if you erradicate white roaches, you also erradicate wings. Next thing you know, there are only brown, read, black roaches left that are wingless.

In my example:
* Lingolas' feet is natural selection
* small roaches are fitter than large roaches
* the fittest survives (small survives)
* Natural selection exerted a pressure against large sizes

What happen if natural selection select reproductive organs instead of overall sizes? If sexual organs cant fit during copulation then you can reproduce at all. If you cant reproduce you cant create offsprings. If you cant create offsprings you can not pass on your genes. If you can not pass on your genes then you are eliminted from the gene pool.

I dont know if anyone were able to follow my ridiculous examples. Of course this is over simplified, i left out alot of other stuff dealing with genetic, statistics and chemistry.

----------------
a great way to understand evolution is to understand genetic and mutation. Once you understand how information is transfered and altered, you will realize how easy it is for one organism to evolve.

Newbie

Apr 04, 2006 · 10:43 #58

Like i said i am not a "debater" in this , Was just shareing what i know and my Exp on this .

Lingolas , First off I know how corbon argon dateing works
Its the study of the decaying atoms in the object , Half-lifes are What it is basicly .. If i remember right now (Long time ago) They count the halflifes and "Estimate" the Life of the object , But if there are counting the half-lifes, They reach a point where they cant go any further ..This is where they Guess the rest of the way...

You can Get a rock dated if you like, Go to some island and pick up a fresh lava rock and get it dated its been proven wrong when used on objects under a 1000000 years or something like that, Sounds kinda fishy there..Thats not fact its estimation

I would like to here evidence of evolution. As ken says " There is and has been no evidience that a dog can or will ever produse a NON dog"
Which is the whole theory of evolution

⚔ Caretaker

Apr 04, 2006 · 10:54 #59

well yes.. anything a dog evolved into would still belong in the dog family ? i believe?

Newbie

Apr 04, 2006 · 11:00 #60

From ligolas post
Code:
believe what he says where he says Evolution should not be taught in schools only because it has nothing really to do with learning the human body in biololdy

i believe the word is biology.
anyway, the whole foundation of biology rests on evolution. Evolution is the pinacle of biology. We would not be able to understand HIV and treat it so successfully if we didnt understand evolution. The whole branche of human anatomy and human physiology would be nothing more than medival witchdotors without evolution. Ecologists would not understand half of what they understand without evolution.

That is the most ignorate thing i have ever herad you say man , Evolution has nothing to do with the STUDY of biology..
The study of biology is the study of the human body ,its organs and mustles ,bones and so on.. You Can learn all about the human body and still not need evolution. Show me a surgen or a docter that saved someones life because he knows we came from mud, We cant repoduse evolution or anything like it so how would this study help him??.

BTW when something like HIV, germs or bugs grow resistant to something thats not evolution.. Read a book man pesticides and drugs target the dna or cell structures of the "enemy" If the bug or germ mutated it might become resistant because the target cell of the pesticides will change or be removed which will make it survive and be there to spread that resistant defective geans around.. Mutations are a LOSS of infomation from the cell or Dna, It has never been witnessd that a mutation would ever GAIN infomation out of no where, another agument that evoution is iffy at best

Well as you can tell i am sleepy as hell >.<

Newbie

Apr 04, 2006 · 11:02 #61

Kiasyn wrote:
well yes.. anything a dog evolved into would still belong in the dog family ? i believe?

Dogs are Always going to be dogs , it has been that way for all knowen history, Evolution is not "breeding" You can change the way a dog looks but its still a dog no matter what you do with it ..Species are not "races"

Retired Caretaker

Apr 04, 2006 · 15:47 #62

definition of evolution:

1.) A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

2.)
a) The process of developing.
b) Gradual development.

3.)
a) 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.

b)The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

Dual-Avatar

Apr 04, 2006 · 18:09 #63

response to thremp,

CODE · MUD Output

 Evolution has nothing to do with the STUDY of biology..

Just plain wrong. I major in Biology buddy. Biology is my main study. I've been studying it for 5 years now. The first class that they make you take in biology is evolution. The 2nd class you take is evolution and the third class is genetic. From there on all other classes that you take tied directly to evolution. I have taken these courses:
PATTERN DIV/ECO/EVO
PROCESSES ECOL/EVOL
HUMAN REPROD & DEV
GENETICS
ORGANIC CHEMISTRY CHEM
ORG CHEM LAB
INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY
BIOCHEMISTRY
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY BIO SCI
EXPER BIO LAB
CELL BIOLOGY BIO SCI
HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY
DEVELOPMNTL BIOLOGY
PHYSIOLOGY LAB BIO SCI
HUMAN ANATOMY
INFECTIOUS DISEASE BIO SCI
MEDITRRANEAN ECOSYS

believe me when i say that these are tied to evolution. I know this for a fact because i have studied them myself not because i read it on some unreliable website off of google. If you want, i can go into more details and explain how these subjects are related to evolution.

CODE · MUD Output

The study of biology is the study of the human body ,its organs and mustles ,bones and so on..

dead wrong
Biology is the study of life!!!
Anatomy is the study of body structures. Bones, blood, organs and how anatomical structures function. This does not have to be about humans. Now, human anatomy on the other hand is specifically about human structures.
Doctors dont know shit about biology compared to biologists. Doctors only know what was required for them to get into medical shools. Sure they know alot about the human body but that is only a small portion of biology. Even biggest findings and breakthrough dont come from doctors. they come from biologists. Doctor are then taught by biologists.

CODE · MUD Output

You Can learn all about the human body and still not need evolution.

Of course you can, but you will have alot of trouble treating retroviruses. Again we do have doctors that treat people without any clue about biology...we call them witchdoctors and they lived in the dark ages.

CODE · MUD Output

Show me a surgen or a docter that saved someones life because he knows we came from mud

No one ever said we came from muds. I think only people dont know what they are talking about would make that kind of claim. Mud is abiotic. it is not living. If you are not living you are not subject to evolution. even if you are living and cant reproduce, you are not subject to evolution. If you are living and can reproduce but in the absense of selective pressure you are not subject to evolution. If you are all of the above with selective pressure but have equal fitness then you still are not subject to evolution. Go read a book and come back with a more intelligent rebuttal.

CODE · MUD Output

We cant repoduse evolution or anything like it so how would this study help him??.

here is the most famous study that may help you answer your question. find the evolution of Guppies experiment. I think you can find a similar study on PBS Nova.

CODE · MUD Output

BTW when something like HIV, germs or bugs grow resistant to something thats not evolution..

you seem to know more about HIV, germs and resistant. I challenge this claim and dare me to provide evidence that suggests that HIV does not evolve. I will show you mine in another post.

CODE · MUD Output

Read a book man pesticides and drugs target the dna or cell structures of the "enemy"

I know, for example reverse transcriptase inhibitor inhibits revertranscriptase, an HIV enzyme that allows to retrovirus to turn from a single strand RNA into a double strand DNA by using the host replicative machinery. I hope you know that this does not prove your point. I will point out the error in your argument in a bit.

[codeIf the bug or germ mutated it might become resistant because the target cell of the pesticides will change or be removed which will make it survive and be there to spread that resistant defective geans around..
Not this simply buddy, but for the sake of the argument lets assume so.

[codeMutations are a LOSS of infomation from the cell or Dna
WRONG! you seriously need to figure out what is a mutation, its cause and effect. How is mutation related to the genotype and the phenotype. Again, please do your hw carefully before you make wild claims that are outright wrong. Mutation CAN GAIN function. Mutation simply means changes in the genome. That's it!!! this may result in the loss of function if that sequence is transcripe into a non working protein strand. It can GAIN a function if the changes happen to code for a sequence that create working proteins. Mutation happens all the time! most of them are loss of function hence we are fine because it doesnt do anything. Gain of function is more lethal. We call them CANCER. Cancers are mutation that has gained functions.

CODE · MUD Output

It has never been witnessd that a mutation would ever GAIN infomation out of no where, another agument that evoution is iffy at best

read what i said above.
Also, i study papilloma viruses for a living. Believe me when i say viral evolution exists.

Dual-Avatar

Apr 04, 2006 · 18:18 #64

response to Isabelle:

CODE · MUD Output

definition of evolution: 

1.) A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Sorry Isabelle, this is a myth. Evolution does not push organisms into higher form or into a more complex form. RELATIVE fitness yes.

CODE · MUD Output

2.) 
a) The process of developing. 
b) Gradual development.

Yes, transitional fossil records are abundant to support this. I dont know why creationists always like to claim that there are no transitional fossil records.

CODE · MUD Output

3.) 
a) 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.

Yes, but not necessary. Small populations have greater chances of having a genetic drift leading to evolution.

CODE · MUD Output

b)The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

yes countless evidence of this. This is where antomy comes in.

Dual-Avatar

Apr 04, 2006 · 18:24 #65

response to voska in post #2 of this thread.

Voska wrote: 2. i dont think things magically derive from someplace out of no where

Your belief is probably right but have you ever heard of antimater? A very intesting topic. Alot of people got excited over this when it was first discovered.

Retired Caretaker

Apr 04, 2006 · 19:14 #66

lingolas wrote:
response to Isabelle:
CODE · MUD Output
definition of evolution: 

1.) A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. 
Sorry Isabelle, this is a myth. Evolution does not push organisms into higher form or into a more complex form. RELATIVE fitness yes.

yeah, better is an improper word to use.

like, if we evolved into smarter humans, with less strength, it's not really better, since we are weaker.

I wonder, what if you used a different word rather than evolve, or evolution.... what if we used the word adapt, or adaptation, is adaptation the process of evolving?

Insects adapt.. mosquitos adapt.. which is why our use of pesticides and insect repellent is always being changed, because the damn things keep adapting.

Or can you not use the word evolution with adaptation?

Tri-Avatar

Apr 04, 2006 · 19:20 #67

Well, the definition Isabelle posted is technically correct, it is just not the scientific definition. It is the dictionary definition, that is to say that it's what the word means in common usage.

Dual-Avatar

Apr 04, 2006 · 19:49 #68

I know what isabelle meant, it's just that there was a question on the final and most students get it wrong. Most people believe that evolution (not adaptation) results in a more complex organism. This is not necessarily true at all. I can provide an example:

worms that live inside your guts (hopefully you dont have any, common in 3rd world countries) have something called eyespots rather than eyes. Having true eyes would be more complex but not more fit. There is absolutely no need to have eyes because there are no light inside someone elses gut. Having eyes is actually less advantages because they would have to spend extra bodily resources to upkeep those eyes that contribute absolutely nothing to its survival.

another example: marine animals have a reduced sexual organs. This is because they live in a liquid medium. A male organism can simply release sperm in the open ocean and wait for the female to come by and scoop it up at another time. Land animals can't do this because the sperms would dry out, therefore the animals have develope complex structures.

The most successful organisms in this world are actually viruses (assuming that they are alive). Viruses are the simplest thing you can think of but yet the hardest to eradicate.
--------------------------------------------

Retired Caretaker

Apr 04, 2006 · 22:11 #69

my question is, when some organism adapts to something, is that evolution?

so when you take the Avian Bird Flu, and it changes itself to jump from cat to human, and then changes itself to become a highly virulent flu strain, and jumps from human to human, maybe becoming airborn..

has it evolved, or has it simply adapted to it's surroundings, what is the proper term to use for that? Are either terms correct or incorrect?

Dual-Avatar

Apr 04, 2006 · 23:23 #70

CODE · MUD Output

my question is, when some organism adapts to something, is that evolution?

No.
Adaptation and evolution are related but not the same thing. Adaptation is a trait. evolution is stransformation from one speicie to another. You and I can adapt to many things but that does not mean that we have evolved. It is through evolution that we maintain a viable adaptation.
for example: a diverse group of birds live peacefully in a forest. One day, there is this huge snow storm that covers most of the forest. Most birds that can not tolerate the cold go extinct. Those with extra fur that are able to tolerate the cold are better adapted to the new environment so they live. After many generations the population will look very much different from before. Almost all the birds are full of thick feathers. If different conditions keep on changing the birds from one form to another making them so different to a point where these birds can no longer reproduce with the old orginal birds (the ones before the snow storm came in) they are said to have evolved. Notice that individual birds can not evolve. Population evolves not individuals. These newly EVOLED birds are perfectly ADAPTED for their environment. Their ADAPTATION is the ability to grow thick fur that protects them from the cold.

about the avian flu. I know nothing about it so I really cant comment on it. anyone knows?

btw, i got a picture on my computer that i like to post but i dont know how.

Avatar

Apr 06, 2006 · 03:49 #71

Evolution is genetic changes.

BTW Lingolas all those ridiculous statements were Zidane's and not mine.

I think you're bringing in "evolution" and not the "theory of evolution" (the direct competion to the creation theory). If you can't argue them seperately then there is no debate to have. The first isn't debatable at all. It is complete fact. You are mixing arguments and not adressing the original issue.

Tell me how people evolve from ooze. Not that evolution actually occurs.

Tri-Avatar

Apr 06, 2006 · 04:33 #72

Thremp wrote:
Evolution is genetic changes.

BTW Lingolas all those ridiculous statements were Zidane's and not mine.

don't involve me on your notes thremp.

Tri-Avatar

Apr 06, 2006 · 10:32 #73

Thremp wrote:
Tell me how people evolve from ooze. Not that evolution actually occurs.

Tell us how this so called "ooze" is a biotic lifeform to begin with, and we may be able to help you.

Newbie

Apr 06, 2006 · 12:27 #74

That is always a good Argument against evolution , The question is how did it all start ..

IT is said that we started from ooze, then water creatures ...But this is my question if the creature evolved and walked out from the water what did it breed with, unless by chance a huge number of the same race did so at the same time?.

If we all came from the same thing.. Animals, plants and so on why is it a lion cant breed with a deer, or a bear with a panther ..Isent this against the evolutuion theory that creatures from the same origin cant breed?

It dont seem logical that evolution would breed out this many races of animals but limit there breeding like that

Dual-Avatar

Apr 06, 2006 · 19:47 #75

CODE · MUD Output

Tell me how people evolve from ooze. Not that evolution actually occurs

You are speaking of abiogenisis. Abiogenisis is not the samething as evolution and evolution can not explain abiogenisis alone. In fact, it is abiogensis that helps explain evolution.

My memory of abiogenisis is a bit sketchy so i will be very general how something like a rock can become someone like Thremp (not that there is any difference j/k). I don't remember all the details of what i'd learn. afterall, it has been like 5 years now. If you KNOW there is any mistake please point them out.

To understand this you must be able to figure out the composition of the earth 4.3 billion years go. Excuse me if the years are off. The earth did not have oxygen or else everything would have been oxidized and life would not have been able to start. The earth also did not have the same atmosphere as it is today. Atmospher composition was very different. Most of the compounds were poisonous. I dont remember the exact composition and their percentage. The earth also had little protection against UV rays. This UV ray is actually important for life to begin with. if you take all the compounds existed during this time and hit it with UV rays you begin to form all 20 amino acids. For those that you dont know, amino acids are the building block of life. In otherwords, you abiotic compounds begin to form amino acids that are essential to life. What i have said up to this point is not a theory. It has been experiemented on smaller scales and have been confirmed. next thing you need to understand is how lipids are form. Lipids have the ability to seperate internal environment from external environment. This means that they have control of their own composition. At this point, these lipids called protobionts are not yet living, but they possess living characteristic and that is the ability to regulate. These protobionts are specially interesting is because once they reach a certain size they simply break into 2 parts. You can experiment this at home by taking a drop of oil and drop it in a tank of water. Keep on adding oil to that same drop on the water and eventually you will see that it begins to divide into two smaller parts. This is similiar to how cell divides. Up to this point, we know that protobionts are able to regulate and divide. When they divide, the two smaller parts carry the same information as the older bigger part. This is a characteristic of hereditary. Now, back to the amino acids that i was talking about earlier. Chemists have noted that amino acids tend to form RNA in the presence of zinc. We have enough knowledge to believe that this primordial soup was exposed to zinc in the earth surface giving rise to RNA. It is logical to see that these protobionts could have picked up the RNA and started to divide. Up to this point, protobionts have RNA within them, they can divide and regulate their own internal plasm. I dont remember rest.

If you think about it carefully you start to see the little pieces. We dont have the puzzle completed. Several pieces from this puzzle are missing and is under much investigation; however, we can see the big picture without having every piece of the puzzle. This is why some scientists believe that life could have started froma abiotic substances.

Now lets ASSUME that life can start from abiotic substances. It doesnt take too much brain to figure out that there will be diversity. As long as enzymes keep on making mistakesputting nucleotides together and as long as UV keeps on pounding on DNA/RNA there will be mistakes. I dont want to go on and explain the chemistry of how this can happen, just take my word for it.

Up to this point you have life and diversity, we are missing snowflaykes fish, Thremp's apes and eventually Thremp himself.

As the earth cooled down the atmospheric composition begin to change. I dont know what changed and to what degree. This area is a bit gray to me. All i know is that things changed and water begin to appear. At this point, those protobionts are now living organisms living in the sea floor. We know that living marine creatures come first because of fossil record evidence and recently genetic evidence. Also not too long ago we have found a prehistoric fish that was thought to have extinct still alive in the southeast pacific. Genetic testing on the fish have also supported this. anyway, marine animals living underwater would have to fight compete for food and space. As the earth begin to dry up it develops more land/swamps... Undersea vegetation begin to invade land little by little and eventually land was filled with many trees. Next, the fish that was able to tolerate dry air just a bit was able to venture on land, usually around the costs or the swamps. These guys are of course more fit because they have access to a whole new paradise. because selective pressure select those that can exploit new resources on land, these adapted species are better off. Next thing you know, we have animals on land.

Up to this point we have moved from water to land. Fosil records greatly support this because we can see transition from gill/fins to leg like structures and eventually legs. this did not happen in one day, it took million of years for such transformation to take place as it should.

Lets fast forward until these land animals have evolved enough to become apes. Honestly i dont know how apes evolved to become modern day humans but i suspect that it is through the process of speciations. Basically two groups of apes that are seperated long enough so that the two groups starte to evolve into two different direction. One of the two groups evolved into humans. I believe that PBS Nova also have a great episode on this. I highly recommend everyone to watch it. You can download PBS Nova torrents very easily. Anyway, two of the biggest transformation was 1.) the thumb, and 2.) the brain. The two combine allows us to create tools and ultilize it efficiently.

notice that i left out the neanthertals because that area is a bit gray. People are still debating back and forth. Some anthropologists believe that the neanthertal cross bread with humans to produce modern humans, but other disagree because they were two seperate species therefore genetically and physically they could not have created any offsprings. What we know with confidence is that we erradiated the neanthertal and brought them to extinction.

anyay, by this time those apes should have evolved into Thremp.

Avatar

Apr 07, 2006 · 02:39 #76

Exactly. I just wanted someone to articulate it correctly instead of giving some half-crocked example and spreading misinformation.

Here's an excellent treatment of the argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-e ... _evolution

Dual-Avatar

Apr 08, 2006 · 01:35 #77

Major victory for evolution: Read it here and form your own judgement.

Evidence that may cripple irreducible complexity defenders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html

transitional fossil records between fish and tetrapods found.
http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html

this link is for isabelle
http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuse ... 4251974707

Newbie

Apr 09, 2006 · 05:02 #78

At what point in time did evolution deside to make diffrent sexes when it makes more logical sense from an evolution point of veiw to keep each asexual (How ever its spelled)

I fail to understand how we could of came from ooze, both sexs suddenly all came out at the same time ?

Dual-Avatar

Apr 09, 2006 · 15:52 #79

Snowflayke wrote:
At what point in time did evolution deside to make diffrent sexes when it makes more logical sense from an evolution point of veiw to keep each asexual (How ever its spelled)

I fail to understand how we could of came from ooze, both sexs suddenly all came out at the same time ?

Perhaps it's just me, but the separation into separate sexes seems like a specialization that helped a creature survive better at some point. It's also not like all species have set sexes. They can also be asexual or hermaphroditic, depending on what aids more to the survival of a species. In species that have separate sexes, the different sexes generally act instinctively differently, supporting the idea of specialization.

Dual-Avatar

Apr 09, 2006 · 17:06 #80

Quote:
At what point in time did evolution deside to make diffrent sexes when it makes more logical sense from an evolution point of veiw to keep each asexual (How ever its spelled)

I fail to understand how we could of came from ooze, both sexs suddenly all came out at the same time ?

I'm glad you bring up this because this is intricately tied to evolution.

There are two types of reproduction strategies and they both have their advantages and disadvantages. One is asexual and the other one is sexual. Asexual reproduction is the regeneration of a new individual of a species that is genetically identical to a single parent (cloning). Sexual production is the mixing of the genomes from a male and a female of a species to produce offspring that differ genetically from both parents. Of course. I'm sure you already know this.

Asexual production can hapen by fission, budding or parthenogenisis.
Sexual reproduction can happen by fusion or for our particular species, alot of alcohol and a wild party.

Asexual reproduction is good because it requires very low energy. Many bacteria and viruses CAN do this but they dont have to. The disadvantage is the low genetic variability limits capacity to change meaning that it is highly resistant to evolution. The daughter will looks exactly the same as the mother. the genome is conserved 100% under normal conditions. If mommy was alergic to iodine so will the daughter. Notice that it resists evolution to some degree but it is not absolutely immune to evolution. Sexual reproduction on the other hand requires alot of energy (we all should know this by now :p). The bright side is that we end up with genetic variability. This happens because the mother and the father exchange genetic materials. Their DNA crosses during metaphase of mitosis. chromosomes are very "sticky," they will swap to where they touch. When the chromosomes splits it is now not the same, it is a combination of mother and father. This is why children come out with the father's nose and the mother's hair and so on. Not to mention that there are also additive affects but lets ignore that to keep it simple.

So the question is "how did asexual reproduction give rise to sexual reproduction?"

It is through the process of evolution. I will not explain how this came about because i would have to resay what i said two or three posts ago all over again. What i will explain is how can such phenotype is conserved in the genepool. This has to do with fitness. Like I said, sexual reproduction offers gene diversity. Diversity is good (this is why children of biracial parents are often bigger, stronger, smarter, and get sick less than the average child of the same racial parents)Diversity ensures the greater survival of the population because diversity generates different fitness. The greater the variability the chances are natural selection can not put pressure on all. If natural selection can only put pressure only on a few, the rest will escape because they have a different fitness. Those that escape eradication can repopulate the population creating more diversity. Here is an example in simpler terms for those that have no clue what i jus said.

Imagine a black group of moth in England. These moth are tend to anchor themselves to the lower half of trees in the city. The moths' predators are birds. Usually some moths are eaten and other escape predation depending on how well they can blend in with the color of the tree's bark. Lets just say that one day the city decided to spray paint all trees white like what they sometime do here. Now these trees are completely white exposing the black moths to all predators. Birds can now spot them easily and eat them all. This population of moth is screwed because they have no diversity. Had this population had diversity resulting in a population of moths with many different colors (including white), the white ones would have escaped death when the trees are painted white. These that escape death can then give rise to black moths again. Before you can understand how white moths give rise to black moths you have to understand dominance and recessive genes, but lets not go in that direction.

Sexual reproduction generates diversity. Diversity offers a better chance of escaping death.

---------------------
now you know how sexual reproduction is tied to evolution, now you can understand why:

1.Incest is prohibited in most places
2.Incest is avoided by most animals
3.Self pollination is avoided by many flowering plants
4.How some of the roman emperors turned out retarded.
5.Why royal bloodlines usually produce children with major heritary diseases in the past.
6.why we dont find our siblings sexually attractive no matter how good looking they are.(there are exceptions...those sick mtf)
7. why do we end up with typical progressors and late progressors for some HIV patients?
8. what are the role of antibodies in respect to diversity?

-----------
response to quintos.

Yes you are correct. It is a survial strategy.

Dual-Avatar

Apr 10, 2006 · 23:03 #81

(i didnt write this)
AAAS Responds to Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Controversy

According to a study conducted by Education Week, many other states have standards that “fail to address the fundamental evidence supporting the theory, which explains how life on Earth developed…. the age of the Earth, internal similarities among organisms, or the common ancestry of different species.”

Avatar

Apr 14, 2006 · 07:24 #82

F*** status.

Evolution is most likely, whereas creationism (or intelligent design) is a shot in the dark. Not saying any is correct, one just happens to have physical evidence, and it ain't the latter.

One could ask, "Why exist? What's the nature of reality as we know it?" This could be a basis for intelligent design theory, because it presents the idea the cosmos has a 'will' that it wants to accomplish. Then you could get into the argument of whether it's a singular, or multi-faceted?

Creationism is mostly garbage. I wouldn't be suprised if there's some misunderstood metaphors used in some biblical texts that may really have some basis as to how things got started. But largely garbage. However, that's easy to say now, being hundreds of years from now we could be creating entire species via gene engineering. We'd be playing the God figure then, and should we accidently leave some intelligent apes on some random planet, who knows what they'll end up saying about us epochs from then, eh?

What if we're just jumping through hoops for absolutely nothing? Time does eventually run out. One of two things will happen, either we keep expanding till physical matter is ripped apart by dark matter/energy, or it all collapses back in on itself... over and over... to what end? What's the bleeding point of that I ask? Doesn't sound very intelligent to me, rather mindless really.

Avatar

Apr 14, 2006 · 21:02 #83

Snowflake stated that a lot of the evidence given in support of evolution in textbooks has been proven wrong, and recieved a lot of flak over that statment. However Snowflayke is correct, the famous Scopes Monkey Trial is a good example. Many textbooks still make referance to it. Often with a statment like, "It has been proven in a court of law that evolution is valid". But, nearly every piece of evidence used to support evolution in that famous case has been proven false over time, the teeth used turned out to be pigs teeth, and so on. Even Charles Darwin had his doubts about evolution latter in life. Yet none of this is ever printed in our textbooks.

Not that this means evolution is wrong, but we should stop putting outdated and wrong information in our childrens textbooks. We can not disreguard the vast amount of data that supports evolution within the animal kingdom. My only trouble with the theory is when it is applied to humans. We call ourselves Homo Sapien, man the wise, Homo Ignoramous would be more accurate.

Homo Sapien, we gave ourselves that name in part because we have such a large brain, most of which we do not use. One of the things we were taught in school was that we only use 10% of our brain. Show me one, just one example where evolution produced a creature with 90% more of something than it needs. A bird with 90% more wing than needed, a fish with 90% more fin than it needs.

The rest of the universe can be explined by science or religion without them butting heads, but humans love to argue to much for that to ever happen.

Enough for now, my wife is haveing car trouble, got to run.

Dual-Avatar

Apr 14, 2006 · 22:20 #84

Quote:
One of the things we were taught in school was that we only use 10% of our brain

I'm glad you point this out because it is a myth. We use all of our brain.

Quote:
My only trouble with the theory is when it is applied to humans

It has not yet been proven. Infact nothing is proven in science, it is only supported. Human evolution is the biggest debate ever since Darwin's discovery. If evolution can happen to every animals in this world, i dont see any reason why it can not be applied to us as well. I'm curious, why do you think it can not be applied to humans?

Quote:
we should stop putting outdated and wrong information in our childrens textbooks.

I agree, but poor school districts can not afford new books with new information. These schools often settle for outdated books that are no longer used by richer schools. Also, there's alot of politics involved. I know there are some biology books in some states does not even mention the word evolution once.

CODE · MUD Output

Show me one, just one example where evolution produced a creature with 90% more of something than it needs

Introns. About 98% of the human genome is junk. Genetic code that codes for nothing. Nonsense. These are copied by transposable elements. Sort of like a genetic virus. HOwever, scientists are beginning to question whether these introns are really junk DNA, so Arureal, you may be right. Personally, I dont think species have extra features that are not usable (in the long run). Evolution says that unbenificial features will get stamped out and become lost.

Quote:
The rest of the universe can be explined by science or religion

yes, but I believe that only one is correct or at least a bit of both are correct. Personally, I accept evolution because it makes sense in everyway so it is PROBABLY correct. Theological explaination leaves too much room for doubt so I would have to say that it is PROBABLY wrong.

Dual-Avatar

Apr 14, 2006 · 22:22 #85

hey Kazin/Celeborn,

I wonder how Europe handles this topic? Care to offer some input?

Dual-Avatar

Apr 15, 2006 · 01:20 #86

I just want to point out that Wikipedia is no longer a powerful source of argument. The website itself says that it is not reliable. You can still use wikipedia as a source of your argument but it has little reliability and little authority.

Thanks, just want ot make this clear for future reference.

Avatar

Apr 15, 2006 · 01:34 #87

Why do you say Wikipedia is not valid? I've found most of its information fiarly accurate and interesting. But alas....

That 10% of the brain crap kills me and makes me wanna vomit in my mouth. Thanks for laying the pimp hand.

Newbie

Apr 17, 2006 · 04:42 #88

About parts our body may/may not need , I state what ken says

"If at any time you wish me to remove something from your body which science declares "useless" i will gladly pay 100% of the hosipital bills"
They say part of our tailbone is "useless"
Tonceils( how ever spelled) once thought useless they are now wildly NOT removed because you have a chance to get a lot sicker later in life
your pancreas(sp)..WTF ever its called once though useless is now showen to have great use in white cell development
I would personaly pay to see some guy get his nipples removed , i mean there useless and all.

I dont think there is any part of our body that is useless and that has mean something , We arent growen like this maybe we were "made"?

If we get sick its not because our design, its because what we and our familys did to there body that makes us sick

Dual-Avatar

Apr 17, 2006 · 22:54 #89

I seriously doubt that he can keep his words. Will he pay for appendix removal? how about sebacious and ganlia cysts? how about tumors? All of these are within the body.

I'm not saying that the appendix is useless. People agree that the appendix has no uses but i think that we just havent fully understood its function. the nice thing about science is that as soon as it is flexible, it is able to change according to our understanding. Religions on the other hand is absolute. What we discovered when we were dumbnuts we grudgingly hang on to it.

snowflayke writes:

Quote:
If we get sick its not because our design, its because what we and our familys did to there body that makes us sick

I generally agree but I have to disagree alittle bit because there are genetic diseases. Those are out of our control. They come from within our body. We are writen that way and we can not avoid it. If you have a genetic code that screws up somewhere along the genome and there is no other replacement you will face it down the road. You can not avoid it no matter what you do (unless you die before that part of the DNA grove is read).

Avatar

Apr 18, 2006 · 05:26 #90

Sorry about my last post being so short, I had to go help my wife. You all know I seldom make statements without backing them up. So to fill in the details, here is the rest of the story.

Lingolas,
I am glad you caught that myth about us using only 10% of or brain. I used that specifc example because it shows one of the many things we have in our schools textbooks that are wrong. It is more correct to say that we use all of our brain, just not at its full ability. Kind of like useing a Formula 1 race car to drive around town and pay your bills. You are useing the whole car, but not at its full ability. Let me explain, a lady I know has a genitic problem with her brain, the two sides are not connected as in a normal brain. She discovered that this condition is not as uncommon as you might think. some children diagnosed with A.D.D. and other problems may have this condition, only it was never checked for. Even rarer is that some people are born with just half a brain. Yet studies have shown that they can perform at normal levels, even excell in life. As this condition is not allways apparent from the outside, the true number of people with these conditions is unknown. So reguardless of how one words it, or the specific amount, we do not need as much brain as we have.
The brain is an expensive organ to maintain, and uses a large amount of the bodies resources as compaired to other organs. Evolution would not build any organ with such a degree of over-enginering.

You asked me why I do not think evolution applies to humans. I do think it applies to humans, my problem is in how it is applied to humans. Remember My Theory states that Evolved Humans Interbreed with the Decendents of Adam and Eve. With that thought in mind, humans and their various cultures promote devolution rather than evolution. From the moment that humans started gaining control over their enviroment, they have been cutting the bonds of natural selection that drives evolution, and substiuting their own.
Now please do not take this the wrong way, the following statments are from a purely evolutionary viewpoint, not mine. Human socity allows stupid people to live, and worse breed, whereas in the wild their stupidity would kill them off, hopefully before they reproduced. We take care of our elderly, wasting resources and providing a breeding ground for desease. People with genitic deseases are aided by doctors instead of being spayed or nutered by them, like any other animal unfit for breeding. We help the sick and wounded, rather than letting the weak die and the strong survive. If we think so highly of evolution, why do we chose such a devolutionary structure for our socities. Given our actions for thousands of years, we are more apt to devolve over time than evolve. Now do not get me wrong, I do not wish to spay or nuter a third the worlds population, and kill another third just to improve the gene pool. Unless I am elected supreme ruler of course.

So is there any evidence to support that we are devolving? Well, very little as we are just building a good database of genitic info to study, but here is an interesting tidbit. When I was takeing biology, my textbook had this formula that could be used to determine the average lifespan of any animal, except for one, humans. When applied to humans it gave a average lifespan of 120 years. Also of note, 120 years is also the max age that God said he would let man live after the flood. Well this makes us unique amoung the animal kingdom! We do not live as long as we should. In fact most of the recent gains in lifespan can be attributed to technology which gave us better nutrition and medicine. So evolution has produced a species, humans, that can not even get the nutrition from its environment to live even a fraction of its possiable lifespan. Yep, evolution did a good job there with us humans. There are a number of ancient writings that state ages for people equal to modern times and up to the 120 average predicted, or above. Most of these are dismissed as errornous or otherwise irrelavent, and no serious researcher dare use them for fear of ridacule.

I am glad that you see my point on the need to correct our schoolbooks. You are correct also in that money and politics are involved in these decisions. Of note is that my current home state of Kentucky is one of the states that do not mention evolution in their textbooks. It was also in this state that the famous Monkey Trial proved evolution in a court of law, with false evidence. Politics again.

I was aware of Introns in the human genome, but did not wish to delve too deep into genitics here. The large amount of this useless genitic info is one of the things that I felt supported my interbreeding theory, and by others to suggest aliens modifing our genes. I have noticed some genitic traits that pop up from time to time that also suggests interbreeding. My best friend growing up could have been cast as a caveman in any movie, no make up required, except he had one one the keenest minds I have ever meet. I often joked that after he died, I could dig him up, and claim to have found the missing link. Except for that darn carbon 14 dateing won't let me get away with it, rats, foiled again.

Here is why I think both religion and science don't need to but heads.

An all powerful God that exists outside time and space can certainly make and operate within an universe goveraned by the laws of science, without breaking any of those laws in the process. Religion should not object to science trying to discover the laws that govern our universe, for they are the laws set down by God at its creation.

Science should not object to religion trying to explain the universe, there is always room for God in the unknown. As science is in pusuit of the basic laws of the universe, God is not a factor as he/she exists outside of space and time and does not affect it.

Arureal

When asked if he would become Supreme ruler of the World, Arureal replied. " If nominated, I will not run. If elected I will not serve. If re-elected, I might be persuaded."

Avatar

Apr 18, 2006 · 09:13 #91

I agree mostly with the fact that although we are still part of the evolutionary chain, humans have partially set themselves beyond it. Its at least partly due to the fact that we have no predators...and therefore fat people dont have to outrun anything

(Just an example). Generally, we dont need to genetically compete with anything for survival. (Aside: one fantasy series i read proposed that for balance, humans needed a species greater than them..in their case: dragons

So lets bring back the dinosaurs!)

One thing I would like to argue is that bit about the formula giving 120 years for our lifespan. I saw a show on Discovery about a shrew in Africa and they were talking about the fact that most animals live like 800 million beats of the heart or something (dont call me on the numbers) and that the formula they created was based on the fact that longer living creatures have lower heart rates. I looked up the formula and the accompanying story/formula said that humans are actually supposed to live only about 30+ years and that medicine and living conditions allowed us to live longer. Which imo, sounds entirely more logical since I dont believe the Biblical story about hundreds of years. So im not sure who's right (i think its me

) but perhaps it can be discussed.

One more thing about the whole unnecessary organs thing...dont we also have DNA that isnt necessarily junk but has a purpose that we longer use? I can remember vaguely learning about something like that. In any case, im not sure that unnecessary things would disappear. If traits get incorporated because animals with them would survive and others without them would not, then would it not also be the same with disappearing traits? If people without them (or in case of the appendix perhaps w/ smaller ones) survived while others with them did not..then it would eventually disappear. Sounds logical, anyone have anything to refute or support this?

(I suspect also that many of the things are still here because we inherently retain sort of a historical code of our evolution. Sort of seen by the fact that when babies grow from an egg they first get gills, a tail, etc. But maybe im drawing bad conclusions)

Tri-Avatar

Apr 18, 2006 · 12:42 #92

Arureal wrote:
Sorry about my last post being so short, I had to go help my wife. You all know I seldom make statements without backing them up. So to fill in the details, here is the rest of the story.

Lingolas,
I am glad you caught that myth about us using only 10% of or brain. I used that specifc example because it shows one of the many things we have in our schools textbooks that are wrong. It is more correct to say that we use all of our brain, just not at its full ability. Kind of like useing a Formula 1 race car to drive around town and pay your bills. You are useing the whole car, but not at its full ability. Let me explain, a lady I know has a genitic problem with her brain, the two sides are not connected as in a normal brain. She discovered that this condition is not as uncommon as you might think. some children diagnosed with A.D.D. and other problems may have this condition, only it was never checked for. Even rarer is that some people are born with just half a brain. Yet studies have shown that they can perform at normal levels, even excell in life. As this condition is not allways apparent from the outside, the true number of people with these conditions is unknown. So reguardless of how one words it, or the specific amount, we do not need as much brain as we have.
The brain is an expensive organ to maintain, and uses a large amount of the bodies resources as compaired to other organs. Evolution would not build any organ with such a degree of over-enginering.

You asked me why I do not think evolution applies to humans. I do think it applies to humans, my problem is in how it is applied to humans. Remember My Theory states that Evolved Humans Interbreed with the Decendents of Adam and Eve. With that thought in mind, humans and their various cultures promote devolution rather than evolution. From the moment that humans started gaining control over their enviroment, they have been cutting the bonds of natural selection that drives evolution, and substiuting their own.
Now please do not take this the wrong way, the following statments are from a purely evolutionary viewpoint, not mine. Human socity allows stupid people to live, and worse breed, whereas in the wild their stupidity would kill them off, hopefully before they reproduced. We take care of our elderly, wasting resources and providing a breeding ground for desease. People with genitic deseases are aided by doctors instead of being spayed or nutered by them, like any other animal unfit for breeding. We help the sick and wounded, rather than letting the weak die and the strong survive. If we think so highly of evolution, why do we chose such a devolutionary structure for our socities. Given our actions for thousands of years, we are more apt to devolve over time than evolve. Now do not get me wrong, I do not wish to spay or nuter a third the worlds population, and kill another third just to improve the gene pool. Unless I am elected supreme ruler of course.

So is there any evidence to support that we are devolving? Well, very little as we are just building a good database of genitic info to study, but here is an interesting tidbit. When I was takeing biology, my textbook had this formula that could be used to determine the average lifespan of any animal, except for one, humans. When applied to humans it gave a average lifespan of 120 years. Also of note, 120 years is also the max age that God said he would let man live after the flood. Well this makes us unique amoung the animal kingdom! We do not live as long as we should. In fact most of the recent gains in lifespan can be attributed to technology which gave us better nutrition and medicine. So evolution has produced a species, humans, that can not even get the nutrition from its environment to live even a fraction of its possiable lifespan. Yep, evolution did a good job there with us humans. There are a number of ancient writings that state ages for people equal to modern times and up to the 120 average predicted, or above. Most of these are dismissed as errornous or otherwise irrelavent, and no serious researcher dare use them for fear of ridacule.

I can answer this part of your post. This is a misconception with evolution. What you are describing is a lack of selection pressure, which is defined as a consistent force present that forces the gene pool to narrow. A lack of a selective pressure does not imply de-evolution.

I don't think 'devolving' really exists, a lack of selective pressure will not simplify a lifeform. In fact, you could say that as long as they are breeding and doing fine, there IS a selective pressure on is to stay at our current level of complexity and NOT simplify. Evolution doesn't imply 'better' or 'smarter' or faster or quicker or anything like that. When used scientifically, it is simply change triggered by selective pressure, it doesn't have to make humans supermen.

Avatar

Apr 18, 2006 · 18:26 #93

Silvanos,
The formula I mentioned was from a biology course I took some 25 to 30 years ago. It may have been revised or even discarded during that time. As there is no evidence to support devolution yet, it was all I could think of at the moment. Also my memory may have been faultly, it would not be the first time.

Anyway, I am glad you looked that up, as I had no idea of where to find such a formula again.

I did see some work done on what the effects would be of a thousand year lifespan for a human skeleton. A computer program started with a home sapians skeleton as the base, and modeled the effects of a thousand year life span. The resultant skeleton had a lot of what archologists would call primitive characteristics. These primitive characteristics start to appear at about the 200 year mark and increased with time. Now I would not consider this proof of anything. It does cast some doubt on the methods we use to determine tha age of humaniods at time of death, based on the skeleton. If any humanoids had a different life span than us, we would be interpeting the age indicators of the skeleton incorrectly.

Weems,
It was not the lack of natural selection pressure that implies de-evolution, but the actions we replaced them with. Our culture has selection pressures that will promote evolution, but not in a manner that is in the best interest of the race. I used the term devolution to show that it was not a change for the good. But you are correct in that it is still evolution, whether good or bad, in the strictest sense I suppose.
You are incorrect that evolution does not imply better, smarter, ect. That is the very core of evolution, that life gets better, faster, smarter, or some other adaptation that allows one species to gain an advantage, new resource,ect. Evolution that leads in the other direction, tends to result in that species dieing out, as they can no longer compete.
Our level of technology will hopefully keep us from dying out, and may even fix some of the genitic damage caused by our culture. Lets keep our fingers crossed on this one. If we can not fix it, than I am glad I will not be around to see what the human race becomes given the current evolutionary pressures affecting our species. Unless one sees us becoming a race of fat, stupid, disease infested, and highly infertile creatures as a good thing. Then in that case, three cheers for the triumph of evolution.

Tri-Avatar

Apr 18, 2006 · 18:56 #94

Arureal wrote:
Weems,
It was not the lack of natural selection pressure that implies de-evolution, but the actions we replaced them with. Our culture has selection pressures that will promote evolution, but not in a manner that is in the best interest of the race. I used the term devolution to show that it was not a change for the good. But you are correct in that it is still evolution, whether good or bad, in the strictest sense I suppose.
You are incorrect that evolution does not imply better, smarter, ect. That is the very core of evolution, that life gets better, faster, smarter, or some other adaptation that allows one species to gain an advantage, new resource,ect. Evolution that leads in the other direction, tends to result in that species dieing out, as they can no longer compete.
Our level of technology will hopefully keep us from dying out, and may even fix some of the genitic damage caused by our culture. Lets keep our fingers crossed on this one. If we can not fix it, than I am glad I will not be around to see what the human race becomes given the current evolutionary pressures affecting our species. Unless one sees us becoming a race of fat, stupid, disease infested, and highly infertile creatures as a good thing. Then in that case, three cheers for the triumph of evolution.

Hrm. You are perhaps misunderstanding me. Evolution is not a human thing, our opinion of what 'better' is, is not always the same as what allows a species to survive better. Do you see what I mean? Some of the most succesful lifeforms are deceptively simple in their workings, and not really, by our standards, 'better' than us at all.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry so much about humans evolving to be less intelligent/healthy. Sexual attraction does most of that for us. It's fairly rare that you see an unintelligent, unhealthy person breeding with a very intelligent and healthy person, unless there is a large wealth disparity. It's in every one of us to seek mates that would be good genetic material for our kids. There are exceptions to this, but I think that in the vast majority of cases, people tend to try to do their best.

Avatar

Apr 18, 2006 · 20:29 #95

Weems,
Sexual attraction will prevent breeding with unintelligent, unhealthy people. A nice thought, but not true. Lets take for example Brrittany Spears or Paris Hilton, between the two of them they don't have half a brain, but any number of young men would give their left "you know what" to get a chance at pocreation with them, plus they are rich. What more could many guys ask for, a dumb blond who is good looking, with lots of money.

Do you ask a girl for a full genitic evaluation before you do the deed. What people find sexualy attractive varies a lot, and changes over time. Back when I was young, when hot pants and mini skirts was in style, a fat girl or guy could not get a date, much less laid, not true today. A mear hundred years ago, cubby girls were considered sexy, as it showed that they were healthy and capable of bearing children. Heck, many guys will jump in bed with any girl that will have them, without a thought as to that persons genitic material and suitability as a mate.

You also state "Evolution is not a human thing, our opinion of what 'better' is, is not always the same as what allows a species to survive better." Lets look at that and what I said in my post. Intelligent vs Stupid, intelligence helps us to overcome problems and adversity, stupidity causes problems and adversity. Low incidence of genitic disease vs High incidence of genitic disease, I thought this one was a no brainer but, less disease good, more disease bad. Normal fertility rates vs Low fertility rates, Normal fertility, we can reproduce which is good for the species. Low fertility, we have trouble reproducing, bad for the species. Fit vs Fat, here you might have a point, as a fat person could live off their fat in times of famine, as long as they did not have to run from a fit person trying to crarve them up for dinner.

Human, the other white meat, Umm Umm Good.

Avatar

Apr 18, 2006 · 22:35 #96

Here is a question aimed at only those who believe in evolution, and do not believe in a God at all.

What if we discovered tomorrow that the last few thousand years has had a highly negative effect on the human genitic structure. If nothing is done, in a few generations everyone will be carring some kind of genetic disease, or some other ill effect. The only way to fix this problem is to screen the entire worlds population to determine who may reproduce, and who may not. If we do this, in a few generations we will have fixed the threat, and in a few more eliminate genitic disease from the race, with the right breeding program.

Would you go along with this breeding program to save the human race and even perhaps improve it?

What if you were one of those chosen not fit to reproduce? Would you still do it for the greater good?

To what extant do you inforce this breeding program, anything less than full cooperation would greatly increase the time it will be needed?

If the person breaking the law is someone who is not even fit to breed, should we even waste time on a trial or just kill them on the spot?

There are many implications, I can not list them all. Enjoy.

Tri-Avatar

Apr 19, 2006 · 01:11 #97

Arureal wrote:
Weems,
Sexual attraction will prevent breeding with unintelligent, unhealthy people. A nice thought, but not true. Lets take for example Brrittany Spears or Paris Hilton, between the two of them they don't have half a brain, but any number of young men would give their left "you know what" to get a chance at pocreation with them, plus they are rich. What more could many guys ask for, a dumb blond who is good looking, with lots of money. Do you ask a girl for a full genitic evaluation before you do the deed. What people find sexualy attractive varies a lot, and changes over time. Back when I was young, when hot pants and mini skirts was in style, a fat girl or guy could not get a date, much less laid, not true today. A mear hundred years ago, cubby girls were considered sexy, as it showed that they were healthy and capable of bearing children. Heck, many guys will jump in bed with any girl that will have them, without a thought as to that persons genitic material and suitability as a mate.

Yes, why are we attracted to them? Because they are healthy, to be honest. Overall attractiveness on that front has never changed. Things like facial symmetry, clean skin, hip to waist ratio, breast size. Body fat percentage is something that is regional and cultural, but hugely fat has never been attractive.

Also, my example was calling for a smart and healthy person to breed with an unintellgent AND unhealthy individual, without a large wealth disparity. I may have been unclear, if I was, I do apologize.

Avatar

Apr 19, 2006 · 01:38 #98

External looks mean jack-s*** when it comes to healthiness... I should also point out 'attractiveness' is relative/subjective. You think primitive man gave a rat's rear about hygiene and bikini waxes?

For example, that 20-something runway model may be drop dead gorgeous according to modern society's ideals- could have a long genetic history of getting breast cancer.

I could also point out she may have terrible nuturing skills and make for a terrible mother figure.

Genes have a major influence on personality and intelligence. She looks stunning but is as intellectually lustruous as a lump of coal, and about as enthralling as grass growing.

If movie stars (beautiful, "healthy" people) ran things, you can be sure everything would fall apart. Scientology is a prime example. C'mon.

Dual-Avatar

Apr 19, 2006 · 03:05 #99

*attractiveness: i think i already discuss this somewhere on this forum. I think that evolution and attractiveness are VERY closely related. I dont feel like elaborating on this but if anyone requests i will start a new long post explaining the relationship between evolution and attractiveness.

*brittney spear: Is she really dumb? Eventhough Britney seems like a typical blonde, i doubt that she is dumb and here's why. First, she has the motivation. We all know that she can't sing but yet she was consistently on top of the chart. She knows what men desire and she is able to advertise that effectively. From an evolutionary point of view, it doesnt matter what you do, as long as you can get laid and give birth you're good enough.

*Paris Hilton- plain stupid, not even that attractive and she' just lucky

* as for people with genetic diseases, it is very difficult to rule them out because some diseases dont show up until you are at a certain point in life. Usually after you already have had children.

aureal writes

Quote:
Would you go along with this breeding program to save the human race and even perhaps improve it?

this is a tough question. I dont know how to answer this question without falling into any traps. Screening people for genetic errors sounds alot like the eugene program that we had in the past. This can create all kind of discriminations. Human rights and personal privacy is obviously violated. I would not support such program but not because of any reasons i mentioned above.

The reason why i choose not to support the program is because i think that there is a better way to handle the problem. I would force everyone to get tested and have their record privately stored. Before a couple decides to procreate they have the option to check on each other if they like. The person at question may or may not release private health records to the other person but then he/she may not get laid. I think that most people who are aware of the risk of this new genetic disease will check on their mates. Those that are too dumb enough to care and check then well we dont want them to be in the genepool anyway so it wouldnt matter. In the end, the ones that are smart/caustious will survive and those that are recless will get eliminated.

Many things that are similar to this scenario is already happening but at a much smaller scale. One example would be HIV

I didnt read everything from some of the above posts but i saw the word "de-evolution." I dont think that there is such thing as de-evolution. De-evolution is nothing different than evolution. Kinda like saying I walked pass a man vs. a man walked pass me. No difference.

--------
wow you took biology 25 years ago??!! I wasnt even born! Anyway, unlike math and Bob Ross's hair, much has changed since then. We have made much progress with genetic and that sort of changed pretty much everything in biology. Also, evolution has changed significantly since then. I remember while i was in biochemistry kept on saying "btw, that's not in your book, we have just recently discovered it..." Also, if anyone is taking human anatomy right now they will notice that some names are in parenthesis meaning that they will be gone in a few years. Unlike other field of studies, biology and computer are changing very rapidly, there is still so much that we dont know. My physiology book is full of "currently unknown"
----------

to silvanos.
I disagree. I dont think that humans have escaped evolution. Predation is only one of the few selective pressures. Sure we get eaten by lions as often as we used to anymore but we are still dying left and right because of diseases. We are still unable to get a date because we are too ugly, too short, too dumb or too poor. Even if we are perfect in everyway and that everyone is garanteed to have a child before death we will still have evolution because the enzyme that corrects mismatch codon is statistically not sufficient enough to keep us 100% mutation free. If we mutate we evolve, therefore evolution has occured.

---------
There is something called "menes" (I hope i spelled it correctly). I think this is what some of you guys are alluding to. I dont remember much about menes but it would be an interesting area to discuss.

---------
I was discuss one more thing but i forgot what i wanted to say...lol(i hope this is not an early symptom of Alzheimer!)

Avatar

Apr 19, 2006 · 18:40 #100

I sense ugly people hating on beautfiul people in this thread.

Please everyone put down the Haterade. If you're rich, hot, powerful or me; or any combination of the above... people will want to eff you.

Tri-Avatar

Apr 19, 2006 · 21:42 #101

Jorelani wrote:
External looks mean jack-s*** when it comes to healthiness... I should also point out 'attractiveness' is relative/subjective. You think primitive man gave a rat's rear about hygiene and bikini waxes?

Looks DO NOT mean jack. We rely on looks and attractiveness when choosing a mate for a reason, it is a functional aspect of evolution and natural selection, specifically referred to as sexual selection. I will repeat again...Facial symetry, hip to waist ratio, skin clarity, height, build, body fat percentage suitable to the culture and area, yadda...The list goes on. There are universally accepted features that are considered attractive, always have been, even since we were cavemen, and always will be. It's not half as subjective as you think it is.

Avatar

Apr 20, 2006 · 00:28 #102

Not since we wear caveman. Many things have changed. For example obesity in the middle ages as to now. Different things are healthy depending on the generation and much of this comes from society as well as our innate feelings. Previously if you were fat you could stave off famine and afford to eat well. Now we realize it's just cause you're a gluttonous pig.

Avatar

Apr 20, 2006 · 06:39 #103

Looks do provide an initial attraction between two people and serves evolution if they procreate before they find out how big a jerk the other one is and split. Lasting relationships are built on more solid foundations than looks alone, unless both people are very shallow, then it will last untill a better looking partner happens along. Do we really want people this shallow running around reproducing?

Lingolas,
I see you did not fall into the little trap I set with the genetic breeding question. Very Good, you take all the fun out of being evil.

I shall have to be sneaker in the future.

I was looking forward to some of the responces it could have evoked. Your responce was one of the few logical approaches to it that could be taken.

Avatar

Apr 20, 2006 · 18:51 #104

weems wrote:
Looks DO NOT mean jack. We rely on looks and attractiveness when choosing a mate for a reason, it is a functional aspect of evolution and natural selection, specifically referred to as sexual selection. I will repeat again...Facial symetry, hip to waist ratio, skin clarity, height, build, body fat percentage suitable to the culture and area, yadda...The list goes on. There are universally accepted features that are considered attractive, always have been, even since we were cavemen, and always will be. It's not half as subjective as you think it is.

Yeah, I wouldn't want a girl with a sloped foreheard and dragging knuckles. Used in the context of intiating a relationship (and maybe some hot carnal procreation... yeah, baby), i.e. hormone triggers, sight triggers (bone structure, weight), and personal fetishes, it serves its purpose and has it's place, but certainly not integrated into evolution. Animals will continue to inbreed if that's all they have to choose from.

For example:
If you were trapped on an island with girls/guys, none of which you were attracted to before, they will eventually turn very tantalizing. That's why I say it's not 'necessary' or 'important'.

Newbie

Apr 20, 2006 · 19:51 #105

I believe we are getting sicker, not better

True some of us like myself my not be here becuase of modern docs and all that but if you look at whats happening today i think we are getting far sicker and its our own doing

We replace the much needed live vitamins and nutrients in real food with convenice and longevity of our food and its killing us, mc donalds and all those other fast food and even diners use food with almost nothing natrual in them watch the movie "super size me" a healthy man eating good and natural food gets really sick and almosts dies because what hes eating isent food , its corparate crap in a bun -.-

Ever have a craveing?, natures way of telling you it needs something in the food ,some miniral or vit, Well this is why fat people cant stop eating. empty food will never fill you up just make you fat and thats what mc don wants

We are moveing farther away from the foods God gave us (or even evolution) and that cant be good , Even if you take these "dead" vitamin pills its not 1/3rd as good as if you ate what you were made to .. If you dont believe me look it up , those pills you take to make yourself feell better about getting real vitamins are eaither dead ones or extrats which make them about 1/3rd as affective

I learned this when my friend started takeing a live vitamain supplement thing if anyone wants to know its name tell me , She said she never felt better her hair is growing more and her nails are a lot stronger (she was always bitching about them before)

Avatar

Apr 20, 2006 · 20:49 #106

Snowflayke, A very good point.

I saw an interesting study that compaired the nutrients and vitamins found in various strains of apples. Old varities like Winesap had 1/4 the number of vitamins and nutrients found in earlier varities, but 10 times the amount of vitamins and nutrients found in modern varities like Red Delicious. The study suggests that as we breed apples to increase their size and apperance, we reduced their value as food. Could this also be the case with other foods hybrids we have created. Empty food, only good to make us fat.

Also of note is that the bible tells us not to create hybrid crops, but does not tell us why not to. Once again it seems that the bible is ahead of science in knowing what is best for us.

Newbie

Apr 20, 2006 · 23:17 #107

Think about what science has done to the DNA of wheat , it breeds in Posion into it so it dont die so early ... Eating posion sounds fun -.-

"the whiter the bread the quicker your dead" one of my fav

If i remember right Fresh bread made from real wheat and made daily has fatty acids and other stuff that helps streghten the heart , but people found out what makes the bread go bad so fast was these fatty acids and stuff and took them out ..

Its sad when a twinkly can last longer then the people it was made for -.-

Dual-Avatar

Apr 21, 2006 · 01:09 #108

there is much disagreement on this thread but so far i think everyone has remained cool. This is good!
I like aureal's responses the most. they are thoughtful, well argued and do not put anyone down.

Avatar

Apr 21, 2006 · 03:52 #109

I to am pleased with the manner in which everyone has conducted themselves on this thread. With a topic as touchy as this one, that is a rare thing to see. It is a pleasure to speak on such matters without a flame war starting. Good job everyone.

Avatar

Apr 22, 2006 · 07:10 #110

I would have to agree with Aureal about the nutrition and general well being.

Lowbie

May 17, 2006 · 02:47 #111

Quote:
From Lingolas:

Asexual reproduction is good because it requires very low energy. Many bacteria and viruses CAN do this but they dont have to. The disadvantage is the low genetic variability limits capacity to change meaning that it is highly resistant to evolution. The daughter will looks exactly the same as the mother. the genome is conserved 100% under normal conditions. If mommy was alergic to iodine so will the daughter. Notice that it resists evolution to some degree but it is not absolutely immune to evolution.

1. Viruses cannot reproduce asexually, what they do is infect a host and make it into a 'factory' for their RNA/DNA templates to get transcribed and translated. One could say that the host reproduce for the virus, but viruses do not do the asexual'reproduction. Because viruses cannot reproduce on their own, some scientist classify them as nonliving.

2. Asexual reproduction is not anywhere near immune to evolution, nor does it resist evolution. Let's take bacteria for example, there are several methods for them to generate genetic variation and they are all considered normal conditions such as: mutation, conjugation, transduction, and transformation (processes are complicated to explain here, google.com the information for more details). Overtime, they evolved (and still are); if all/most bacteria have the same genome, then humans would have antibiotics for those bacteria.

Dual-Avatar

May 22, 2006 · 22:25 #112

thank you for Jerardo's correction.

Viruses can not reproduce on their own. they can only reproduce by using the host's replicative machinery eg. intergrase.

Whether they are living things are not is highly debatable among biologists. In my opinion, i say they are. eventhough the lack the ability to reproduce they have the ability to take advantage of other's reproductive ability. That's good enough for me.

Avatar

Jul 22, 2006 · 10:04 #113

Update

Stephen Hawking's withdraws his support of the Big Bang Theory.

"There is no singularity, no initial boundary at all; the universe has no beginning!"

“The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. One could say:
"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." "The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE."

Hawking thinks that the inflationary model of the universe cannot explain the present state of the universe. He is troubled by two questions which he does not think the traditional theory of the Big Bang can answer:

Gee, only two, I found a lot more than that. 1) why is the universe so homogenous and isotropic on a large scale, whereas there are "local irregularities" such as galaxies and stars; 2) why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely?

The appeal to an initial singularity is, for Hawking, an admission of defeat:

"If the laws of physics could break down at the beginning of the universe, why couldn't they break down anywhere?" To admit a singularity is to deny a universal predictability to physics, and, hence ultimately, to reject the competency of science to understand the universe. He claims that the "no-boundary proposal can explain all the structure of the universe, including little inhomogeneities like ourselves."

As you may remember, I trashed the Big Bang Theory earlier in this thread, as I have since I first heard that crackpot theory. Nice to know that Hawking's is coming around to my point of view. Though its a shame it has taken him so many years to see the error of his ways.

So what theory will the Ex-Big Bangers hang their hat on now that even leading scientists admit that the Big Bang theory has been blown away.

String theory, or was that Silly String theory, shooting through multi-dimensions. The exact number of which they can't make up their minds about.

Brane theory, or was that Brane Flakes theory. Where we can all go "poof-gone" in an instant when our brane collides with another one in the cosmic breakfast bowl. No thanks, I have enough fiber in my diet already.

Have no fear you Ex-Big Bangers, there is still hope that science may deliver you yet another theory to hang your hat on. The bad news is that the creationist's may like it just as much as you. Then again, they may not, and you all can still fight happily.

Now Hawking's may be a little slow, but he is not clueless.

Lets look again at the first qoute of his in this post. "There is no singularity, no initial boundary at all; the universe has no beginning!" and this one "It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE" and lastly, "the no-boundary proposal can explain all the structure of the universe, including little inhomogeneities like ourselves."

He may be on to something here. The bad news for him is that a number of others have beat him to this point and arrived at a theory that takes all of this into consideration. It is called WSM or the Wave Structure of Matter. While it is not exactly new, it has not recieved a lot of attention. Mainly because most scientists have spent their time trying to prove these other, hopelessly flawed theories.

For those of you brave enough to look at this theory, here is a link to one of the main sites dealing with it. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

For those of you who find that link a little to much to handle at first, here is a link to a forum where a bunch of us eggheads hang out and discuss some of the less technical aspects of it. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysi ... /index.php On that forum I use the same name that my first avatar on DL had, Aireal

This applies to all you creationists also. Though the theory does not include God, it does not exclude God either.

See, I told you that religion and science were not mutally exclusive of each other.

Now about my other theories mentioned in this thread. I am a betting man, any one care to make a wager?

Avatar

Jul 23, 2006 · 07:16 #114

Raphael

Yes I poked fun at Stephen Hawking in my last post. In fact, I think very highly of him. His work has been a great help to me. However he like many scientists, started with the assumption that the Big Bang theory was true. They devote time and research to looking for that proof. After time passes and that proof does not come, then they reconsider the base assumptions and look for another theory thats fits the base facts. Repeat the process. This is the scientific method. The only draw back to it is that it takes time. You have to start somewhere though.

Stephen Hawking is a great physicist. The first leading scientist to admit that the Big Bang theory does not fit the facts, and looks like it never will. So intelligent man that he is, he started asking, what does fit the facts as we know them, and is looking for a new theory. What he came up with is quite interesting, and very important in deciding which way to go next.

It Is:

"The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE."

This makes Brane theory an unlikely replacement. Branes are affected by outside forces, plus they are created and destroyed.

String theory would fit this better. But string theory has its problems. It is not the simplist theory that fits this bill. It requires a greater number of dimensions that can only be investigated mathamaticly.

The Wave Structure of Matter theory is a simpler version of String theory that does not require extra dimensions to work. It also starts with the base assumption that Stephen Hawking noted.

Stephen Hawking also noted, "the no-boundary proposal can explain all the structure of the universe, including little inhomogeneities like ourselves."

The Wave Structure of Matter theory is very good at this also. Philosophy is often discussed by supporters of WSM, for its implications are far ranging. Many religions can find a common ground with it as well.

WSM is not a very well known theory however, though it has been around for some time. I only discovered it due to my work on radaition shielding for spaceships, another of my little hobbies.

I am glad you enjoyed the link I gave. I see you also went to the Joseph Campbell site. I need to post a link to it on our thread devoted to religion. The Joseph Campbell site is a very good place to learn about and discuss various reliogions, and more mystical subjects. On the WSM site we stick to hard science and philosophy discussions on the forum.

I hope others will visit them as well, although they may see another side of me they did not suspect from my modest elven demeanor on DL.

Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies

Dual-Avatar

Jul 25, 2006 · 05:58 #115

For those that don't already know.

I just want topoint out that science is not about proving anything since nothing can really be "proven. " Science is really about "disproving" something. The science method involves experimentation. If you can not carry out an experiment, it is not a a science method. Lastly, the word theory is misleading. Scientifically, the word theory means heavily suported, currently known to be true, and has not yet been disproven. A n educated "guess" is something that most people think of when they hear the word "theory," which is completely wrong. An educated guess is not too well supported and we call it a "hypothesis."

Avatar

Jul 26, 2006 · 07:09 #116

Lingolas

For those that don't already know. Here is the definition of "Theory" according to Webster.

1. Abstract thought.

2. The general principles of a subject.

3. A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain observed facts.

4. A Hypothesis or Conjecture.

It does not mean heavily supported. Nor does it mean currently known to be true, or Has not yet been disproven. Reguardless of how much you wish it meant those things, Lingolas.

The word hypothesis, according to Webster, means An assumption made in order to test its logical or empirical consequences. It does not mean an educated guess that is not well supported, that would be the word "Conjecture", according to Webster. A theory can therefore also be a Hypothesis or Conjecture, just not a very sound theory.

You said in your post. "I just want to point out that science is not about proving anything since nothing can really be "proven."

Please, Nothing can be proven, so good old H2O may be a deadly poison of unknown elements.

You also said "Science is really about "disproving" something." If this was truely the case we whould not have crack pot theories like the big bang hanging around long past their time. Back to good old H2O, did science first try to disprove that it was made up of other elements untill hydrogen and oxygen were the only possible choices left?

I can only conclude that you must be trying to bait me into an argument from your post, for I know you are smarter than this.

The only true fact you stated in your post was that the scientific method involves experimentation. At least at some point.

Avatar

Jul 29, 2006 · 00:38 #117

Now a scientific LAW is another story completly. A scientific law is widely supported by the facts, and have not yet been disproven. There are plenty of examples, and they all have the word LAW in the title to show this exaulted state. The Law of themodynamics, Newtons Laws of motion, Ohm's Law, and so on.

Problems arise when people treat a Theory like a Law. Theories can be good or bad, soundly based or not. The Theory of the Evolution of the Species is an example of a good theory, not yet a law, but a good theory none the less. The Big Bang Theory is an example of a poor theory, so full of holes it begins to resemble the black hole it claims started the universe.

So please try to remember the differance between a scientific LAW and a scientific THEORY. It will save a lot of misunderstanding.

Dual-Avatar

Sep 03, 2006 · 07:18 #118

I can not dispute Webster, but i can tell you from my experience as a science major that a hypothesis and a theory are not the same thing. I have written at least 100 pages of scientific papers and have had many professors and T.As with PHDs or Masters, and one thing that they have consistently tell me is never to confuse the difference between a hypothesis, a theory and a law. In accordance with courses in scientific writtings, a required course, i've learned the differences between the hypothesis and a theory. Unfortunately, i can not pin point the reference book because i used to sell all my books after i finish the course to get money for new books.

According to The World of Biology 5th edi by Solomon and Berg, a hypothesis is a tentative explantion. In other words a hypothesis is an educated guess based on certain knowledge. A hypothesis may be correct or incorrect. And "a hypothesis supported by a large body of observations and experiements become a theory...A theory that over a long period of time, has yielded a true predictions and is thus almost universally accepted is referred to as a scientific principle or law." As you can see, a hypothesis is not the same as a theory.

I like to point out that there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. Most people are confused between the two. theory is a speculation, but a scientific theory is more than just a speculation.

According to Wilstar.org, a scientific theory is more like a law than to hypothesis. A theory is something that is derived from consistent "proven" hypothesis[pattern of prediction]. It is verified by many scientists. a single scientist can not create a theory, a theory can only be created by many scientists with enough evidence and support. Alaw governs a single action by a theory is more complex. A theory involves a series of related phanomena.

Here are some of the most suported Theories:
1.) The theory of gravitation
2.) The theory of evolution
3.) The theory of relativity
4.) The theory of the Big Bang
5.) The String theory

Each there are hundres of hypothesis and experiements that suport these theories. Observations are consistently in suport. Current techonology are built based on these knowledge. We would not be able to send people to the moon without trusting that hte theory of gravitation is correct. We would not be able to trace genes without trusting that the theory of evotion is correct. We would not be able to build optics and other technology involing lazers without strusting the theory of relativity.

*note, relativity is still a bit iffy, many scientists dont agree with einstein on this, they are still trying to take his him down but so far everyone has failed. Not a single physicists have successfully demonstrate that the theory of relativity is incorrect. The experiments they design the more they are forced to believe.

Recently, evolution is taking a different path. The idea of irreducible complexity is causing alot of controversy among the scientific community, in my opinion, i think the theory of irreducible complexity is invalid. Many scientists agree.

The theory of gravity is not even worth arguing. Not a single soul that i know refute this. It is difficult to deny it's existance when you know exactly what it is and everything you have come up aggrees with it.

YOu mention water as H2O. I'm sorry to inform you that you may be wrong on this. Whoever discovered the molecular formula of H2O first had to disprove their NULL HYPOTHESIS. I dont want to explain what a null hypothesis is. Again, the scientic method is about disproving rather than proving. Again, science can not prove anything, it can only disprove it or suport it.

lingolas (#1)

ShanaArkai (#2)

voska (#3)

Zeraphin (#4)

Celeborn (#5)

Chilliwack (#6)

Dourht (#7)

malkier (#8)

lingolas (#9)

Kiasyn (#10)

lingolas (#11)

Dourht (#12)

lingolas (#13)

lingolas (#14)

Dourht (#15)

lingolas (#16)

lingolas (#17)

lingolas (#18)

Kiasyn (#19)

ShanaArkai (#20)

Arureal (#21)

Isabelle (#22)

Thremp (#23)

lingolas (#24)

Thremp (#25)

lingolas (#26)

Nuitari (#27)

Chilliwack (#28)

Arureal (#29)

Isabelle (#30)

Thremp (#31)

lingolas (#32)

Thremp (#33)

Arureal (#34)

Arureal (#35)

Thremp (#36)

Arureal (#37)

lingolas (#38)

Arureal (#39)

Jerardo (#40)

Arureal (#41)

Jerardo (#42)

Arureal (#43)

Snowflayke (#44)

weems (#45)

Nuitari (#46)

Isabelle (#47)

Thremp (#48)

Snowflayke (#49)

weems (#50)

Isabelle (#51)

Thremp (#52)

weems (#53)

Thremp (#54)

weems (#55)

lingolas (#56)

lingolas (#57)

Snowflayke (#58)

Kiasyn (#59)

Snowflayke (#60)

Snowflayke (#61)

Isabelle (#62)

lingolas (#63)

lingolas (#64)

lingolas (#65)

Isabelle (#66)

weems (#67)

lingolas (#68)

Isabelle (#69)

lingolas (#70)

Thremp (#71)

Zidane (#72)

weems (#73)

Snowflayke (#74)

lingolas (#75)

Thremp (#76)

lingolas (#77)

Snowflayke (#78)

Quintos (#79)

lingolas (#80)