EPTlooking forward to the south park episode featuring Ida
The missing link found. - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
looking forward to the south park episode featuring Ida | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32148 Posts
Pretty mind blowing that soemthign that old can be found intact | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 20 2009 21:23 Aegraen wrote: They embellish on more than just this. Current iterations of the Bible are more for marketing than anything else, unless you go back and read in it Hebrew. Even the Moses story you're talking about was mythology in more ways than just the science of it. If you were to go by what modern anthropology tells us, you'd have to add Passover to the list of things to repent for on Yom Kippur.Are you aware that many events that took place in the bible actually happened, though without the 'supernatural' prose that the authors embellished? This is why the bible is not to be taken literally, because the authors at the time did not have the knowledge to adequately explain what they were seeing. Religious scholars tend to agree on this point. Religious scholars tend to agree on this point. I'm not sure how you can really say this. What is a 'religious scholar' to you? Because plenty of scholars don't believe that. It might be far fetched, but so is cherry picking the parts of the Bible that appeal to your ethics, if it is indeed supposed to be a foundational code in one's life.I think you're right that there's nothing inherently contradictory about believing in evolution and God. Still, I continue to see editorials in newspapers from creationists who contend that evolution is a weak theory because we can't prove where matter/existence comes from, because they still equate evolution to the creation of the universe. Letter: Bible vs. evolution debate continues What the fuck does the foundation of the universe have to do with evolution? Even if the Earth is God's right ball, how does that even come close to relating to evolution?by Jakob K. Heckert Tuesday May 12, 2009, 10:23 AM This is a response to letters from Edward Kimball and Richard Alexander (April 21) and James Lupton (April 24). The concept of creation is based on the Biblical account and accepted as a basic assumption. From that perspective, the evidence for creation is the fact of creation's existence. From my point of view the theory of evolution is also based on a foundational assumption, namely that the universe as we know it and all that is in it must have a material origin. Science is then used to gather data to confirm this theory. Such an assumption, it seems to me, precludes any other possibly viable explanation, and consigns it to the religious category. It is thus constituted as a matter of faith, and not science. Such an assumption must deal with two realities, however: 1) the origin of matter/energy and 2) the fact that information as we know it (in DNA for instance) has its source in intelligence, not chance. Blessings. | ||
|
no_comprender
Australia91 Posts
| ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
On May 20 2009 23:07 no_comprender wrote: missing link? chimps and humans split like 6mya and they have fingernails, this is just as much the missing link between gibbons and whatever as it is the a missing link for humans. cool nonetheless It's the missing link between primates and lesser mammals, notice it lived ~47 million years ago. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
When scientific proposals take off, it's usually politicians, who are obviously great at PR, directing the message rather than the scientific community, such as with the IPCC (which does not do any research or monitoring) or the E85 movement. Scientists are usually an accessory, not main actors. | ||
|
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
| ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
| ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
It doesn't really change much though because we already had an overwhelming wealth of evidence for evolution. | ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
| ||
|
SirGlinG
Sweden933 Posts
On May 20 2009 20:07 Aegraen wrote: Evolution is not against Religion. I don't know why some people relate it to that, but I guess that has to do with the hardcore fundamentals. Most christians acknowledge evolution, however, evolution in no way shape or form can disprove 'God', nor can science, because face it, there are things we will never understand, and even by understanding the laws of the universe / nature, it still doesn't mean that god didn't create those laws. Saying this though, I lean more agnostic. Doesn't matter if he exists or not, but you can't disprove or prove it's existence. This; In short: Darwin proves that the God the Bible speaks of is not the God that possibly can be the creator. | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
Today I'm proud to be human! | ||
|
irishash
United States285 Posts
On May 20 2009 19:57 DM20 wrote: Its already been confirmed many times over, the only people who still deny it are uneducated and/or religious fundamentalists. This won't change anything except being one more case against the "show us evolution happening argument" sorry, wrong. edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about | ||
|
BlueRoyaL
United States2493 Posts
On May 21 2009 00:59 Rotodyne wrote: everyone on TL.net has a phd in evolutionary biology this made me LOL, not only in evolutionary biology but in like everything else. We always end up finding people that seem to be specialized in everything depending on the topic  but that's why TL discussions like this are so interesting, not only do the arguments come from all different parts of the scope but it actually seems like a lot of people know, at least a little bit, of what they're talkin about.On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote: sorry, wrong. edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about This is a good point. I'm waiting for someone to explain this one. I am of course assuming what irishash wrote is true | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On May 21 2009 00:59 Rotodyne wrote: everyone on TL.net has a phd in evolutionary biology And theology. | ||
|
ZBiR
Poland1092 Posts
And internet... oh wait, it's enough for itself | ||
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
| ||
|
ragnasaur
United States804 Posts
On May 20 2009 21:34 Velr wrote: I would call that very human compared to this new find. Yes, i overexagerated a *bit* there. Man, this new Ida fossil totally looks more Dino than man, especially from the video on the BBC site. And considering the gap like you pointed out (65ma = Dinos, 47ma = Ida, Lucy 3-6ma) it is a lot easier for me to accept this story as Ida being a Theropod which adapted to a new environment after KT! Just took a prehistory class last semester so im PSYCHED! | ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote: sorry, wrong. edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) The DNA is almost exactly the same. It's just in chromosome no.2 in humans and in two, namely no.2 and no.13 in the other great apes. This can only mean two things. Either chromosome no.2 fused out of great ape chromosomes, meaning we share a common ancestor with them. Or we were designed to look like chromosome no.2 fused out of great ape chromosomes. You think that chromosome no.2 was re-evolved step by step while the other chromosome disappeared step by step, one gene at a time? I don't get it. This is one of the most appealing arguments for evolution that can be made to convince a layman. And you somehow think it's the strongest argument against it? Claiming it is impossible? I don't get it at all. How the hell did you learn about this whole thing anyway? The fact that there is some deal about this chromosome no.2? Which you got right? And 13 you apparently changed into 3. So you must have read about this but you turned it on its head. Or your source did. I don't get how you think it's impossible for a chromosome to fuse. We know these kinds of mutations can happen in one generation. And it's not strange to even imagine how it could happen if you just know how chromosomes are copied. Read up on all those Chromosome abnormality syndromes. Fused chromosomes are not an uncommon anomaly in nature. I bet you have some cells in your body where chromosomes are fused and there's only 22 pair left. | ||
| ||
