|
On May 21 2009 05:59 Motiva wrote:
Tell me about it. I've lived all over the U.S.A . (living in Texas now) and man fuck i despise the people that live in my country. For me it's not funny at all. Just mind blowing depressing.
But thank god that the US has such a large democratic defecit. They produce the most science but also have the most science despising population in the modernised world. Good thing the US elite understand that science=money.
|
On May 21 2009 05:54 Diomedes wrote:
Of course evolution is a theory. If it were just a fact, I wouldn't care. Neither would you.
Who cares about facts? No one. Facts themselves are irrelevant. Theories are interesting. Theories are useful. Theories are constructive. Theories give you a deeper understanding.
If evolution was just a fact Darwin never would have published his book. Religious people wouldn't have cared. It wouldn't be taught in schools. Facts aren't taught. Theories are.
As for the guy claiming the theory of evolution doesn't disprove god. Nothing does because god is not a falsifiable concept.
But all creationists would lose their faith if they had to accept the theory of evolution. Therefore, they reject it. Creationists freely admit this. And they aren't wrong. The moment people become educated and start to accept the theory of evolution they start to slowly lose their faith. It's a slippery slope. The more educated people in the US are, the less likely they are to be creationists. And scientists accept evolution more than other educated people. And the more successful a scientists, the less likely he is to support creationism. Religious people understand this better than non-religious ones.
Only the very smart can cling to their faith without denying (scientific) reality. It takes a lot of double think.
It's like that muslim friend of Steven Weinberg who tried to popularize science in the middle east.
"I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it... and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it's a good thing too."
Thank you for answering none of the questions posed. If you don't know the answer then just say that. My questions were legitimate.
Secondly, saying that facts aren't taught in school is even more absurd than creationism. I don't think I have to address this issue.
You do know most facts were 'theories' before they were facts correct? Take math as prime example and its many formulae.
I'm not sure you know this, but generally, theories are based on known facts. Theories generally are complex, not singular issues that are presented. So, in fact, facts are what give you greater knowledge, questioning, and answering the questions posed by the theories build on the fountain of knowledge that is based on facts. We know for a fact, fossils exist. We know for a fact mutations exist. These are facts. Saying they are irrelevant is absurd.
I agree evolution and creationism cannot live side by side. You either accept one or the other. They are not mutual. God and evolution however, is mutual.
I hope you know, most religious people are in fact, not creationists. The catholic church itself espouses evolution.
Once again, you quantify all religious, or in any case, the majority as incompetents artards. Condescension and false preconceived notions are what we like to call stereotypes, and generally, inaccurate such as this. Most of the smartest people in the world are religious.
|
United States22883 Posts
Aegraen, we have a pair of chromosomes chains, containing 23 chromosomes each. Looking at their compositions, we can actually see that human #2 is chimpanzee #12 and #13 fused together.
So that happens in each chain and we're left with 46 (2x23) instead of 48 (2x24.)
|
On May 21 2009 05:59 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 05:47 Aegraen wrote:On May 21 2009 05:36 zizou21 wrote:On May 21 2009 05:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:I think it's hilarious, also a little sad though, how the theory of evolution is actually a debated issue in usa.  it's really sad, we know Science is a continuous debate. When we stop questioning, is when we lose 'science'; that is, the definition of science and its functions is lost. It would be akin to alchemy at that point. What the fuck are you even talking about? You're saying that if we stop questioning things like gravity, for example, then science would become alchemy? Wow. When we stop questioning evolution the world will be a better place. It's okay to question and have a good logical alternative. If the alternative is "GOD DID IT," then might as well not question at all.
When you stop questioning theories, stop investigating, stop curiosity, and accept on face value, or based on incomplete evidence then yes, that is when it becomes akin to alchemy.
Just like we should stop questioning the absurdity of global warming right? Well, hell, if that is the case, then we would still be believing in global cooling, that was espoused by the same loon scientists in the 1970s-80s right? Let's not even get into that debate, as I have pages and pages, and pages of irrefutable evidence of the fraud of 'global warming'. Fun fact: the sun is primary responsible for the global climate trends of this planet (And the current and next cycle are very, very low output)
|
On May 21 2009 06:14 Aegraen wrote:
You do know most facts were 'theories' before they were facts correct? Take math as prime example and its many formulae.
Things like this and not knowing chromosomes exist in pairs is why I don't take you seriously. If you want to learn more about science, get a science textbook of the appropriate level. Then you can learn what 'chromosomes' and 'scientific theories' actually are.
|
On May 21 2009 06:15 Jibba wrote:
Aegraen, we have a pair of chromosomes chains, containing 23 chromosomes each. Looking at their compositions, we can actually see that human #2 is chimpanzee #12 and #13 fused together.
So that happens in each chain and we're left with 46 (2x23) instead of 48 (2x24.)
Yes, X and Y chromosomes. I was waiting for him to come back and answer/refute what I said. Of course, he just accepted whatever the scientists wrote in 'peer-reviewed' articles. Its becoming a wider segment of the scientific community who are becoming increasingly skeptical towards 'peer reviewed articles'. You have to research about each scientist involved as they generally tend to now a days come together and agree without much question for the other side of arguements.
|
On May 21 2009 06:14 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 05:54 Diomedes wrote:
Of course evolution is a theory. If it were just a fact, I wouldn't care. Neither would you.
Who cares about facts? No one. Facts themselves are irrelevant. Theories are interesting. Theories are useful. Theories are constructive. Theories give you a deeper understanding.
If evolution was just a fact Darwin never would have published his book. Religious people wouldn't have cared. It wouldn't be taught in schools. Facts aren't taught. Theories are.
As for the guy claiming the theory of evolution doesn't disprove god. Nothing does because god is not a falsifiable concept.
But all creationists would lose their faith if they had to accept the theory of evolution. Therefore, they reject it. Creationists freely admit this. And they aren't wrong. The moment people become educated and start to accept the theory of evolution they start to slowly lose their faith. It's a slippery slope. The more educated people in the US are, the less likely they are to be creationists. And scientists accept evolution more than other educated people. And the more successful a scientists, the less likely he is to support creationism. Religious people understand this better than non-religious ones.
Only the very smart can cling to their faith without denying (scientific) reality. It takes a lot of double think.
It's like that muslim friend of Steven Weinberg who tried to popularize science in the middle east.
"I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it... and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it's a good thing too."
Thank you for answering none of the questions posed. If you don't know the answer then just say that. My questions were legitimate. Secondly, saying that facts aren't taught in school is even more absurd than creationism. I don't think I have to address this issue. You do know most facts were 'theories' before they were facts correct? Take math as prime example and its many formulae. I'm not sure you know this, but generally, theories are based on known facts. Theories generally are complex, not singular issues that are presented. So, in fact, facts are what give you greater knowledge, questioning, and answering the questions posed by the theories build on the fountain of knowledge that is based on facts. We know for a fact, fossils exist. We know for a fact mutations exist. These are facts. Saying they are irrelevant is absurd. I agree evolution and creationism cannot live side by side. You either accept one or the other. They are not mutual. God and evolution however, is mutual. I hope you know, most religious people are in fact, not creationists. The catholic church itself espouses evolution. Once again, you quantify all religious, or in any case, the majority as incompetents artards. Condescension and false preconceived notions are what we like to call stereotypes, and generally, inaccurate such as this. Most of the smartest people in the world are religious.
I just want to jump in here and say that a theory can be a fact. The theory of evolution is an accepted fact.
|
On May 21 2009 06:20 Diomedes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 06:14 Aegraen wrote:
You do know most facts were 'theories' before they were facts correct? Take math as prime example and its many formulae.
Things like this and not knowing chromosomes exist in pairs is why I don't take you seriously. If you want to learn more about science, get a science textbook of the appropriate level. Then you can learn what 'chromosomes' and 'scientific theories' actually are.
You couldn't answer it when I brought it up. Something as simple as this. You instead took face value of scientists without yourself understanding the concepts. This is exactly what I was getting at with religious scientific zealotry. You can see this in the global warming crowd and their fanaticism. That was the whole point of what I was getting at; to showcase how hypocritical one side is to the other.
|
That's better than believing scientists that can get their paper peer reviewed and published in Nature can't subtract 2 from a 2-digit number.
X and Y? Hahaha. Sure, you knew all about this and was just waiting for me to counter this to proof I didn't just echo scientific dogma. What a clever little test.
[edit]
lol you just did exactly what I predicted. You are worse than your satire, apparently.
|
United States22883 Posts
When journals conduct peer reviews, they choose other experts in the same field to review the material. The authors do not choose who gets to review their work. There's some potential flaws in this method, but it's probably the best there is, and then the report is made available for everyone to critique.
|
No one would believe he isn't a troll. Let's just ignore him. He's ruining all topics.
|
I have a lot to say, but I'm tempted to refrain. It's nothing I haven't said before...
First if you have any doubt about evolution being an extremely strong resemblance to the "truth". Then you really don't understand the beauty of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is something much greater than the way most people would use the term theory. Einstien's Theories of Relativity disprove Newton's Laws. Gravity, Centripetal force, Friction - these are all theories. The knowledge of our very existence can easily be classified as a theory. So honestly if you say "Evolution is JUST a theory" and mean it in a way that means to discredit evolution you're really just admitting your own ignorance. Holes != Lost Credbility. If that were true then we would know nothing, because we don't know everything about anything.
@Aegraen
Your interpretations of the "purposes" of events within the mutations of DNA is a bit off. This isn't really how DNA works. There is no "purpose". Mutations are random and are only "proliferated" in the sense that if the mutation causes the species to be better off than it's "peers" in terms of reproduction and survival. It is inevitable that the "better off species" will become dominate on a long enough time line. DNA/Evolution doesn't care about anything, surviving however allows you to mate, and if you had a gene that mutated and gave you a 20% better chance of survival than your peers in the next 5 years then in 1000 generations that mutation is standard simply because it has had a greater opportunity to spread. This should just be common sense. Survival of the Fittest also means mating of the fittest.
Meh, I really don't wanna look into this chromosome fusing nonsense you guys are stumbling over. Chromosomes are made up of genes, which are just protiens ectectectectectect all very known. Chromosomes aren't "whole objects" they can break into any arrangement of pieces, completely merge together ectect. This is all common in the history of evolution, and shouldn't be anything to question. How such a change could be propagated is pretty much just what a stated above. A change as such would survive only if it provided a + % to the mating and surviving abilities of the species.
meh my 2cents + 2 more.
|
Norway28781 Posts
man its not possible to function in todays world without accepting some things you don't understand every single last tidbit of.. if I were to live my life that way, there would be about 0 things I could claim to have knowledge of..
|
Changes could survive even if they aren't beneficial. But a chromosomal mutation would help greatly with speciation. If a species can't speciate into two new species then one can't specialize into a new niche. All attempts would be halted every time the two species get to interbreed again.
|
On May 21 2009 06:28 Motiva wrote:
I have a lot to say, but I'm tempted to refrain. It's nothing I haven't said before...
First if you have any doubt about evolution being an extremely strong resemblance to the "truth". Then you really don't understand the beauty of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is something much greater than the way most people would use the term theory. Einstien's Theories of Relativity disprove Newton's Laws. Gravity, Centripetal force, Friction - these are all theories. The knowledge of our very existence can easily be classified as a theory. So honestly if you say "Evolution is JUST a theory" and mean it in a way that means to discredit evolution you're really just admitting your own ignorance. Holes != Lost Credbility. If that were true then we would know nothing, because we don't know everything about anything.
@Aegraen
Your interpretations of the "purposes" of events within the mutations of DNA is a bit off. This isn't really how DNA works. There is no "purpose". Mutations are random and are only "proliferated" in the sense that if the mutation causes the species to be better off than it's "peers" in terms of reproduction and survival. It is inevitable that the "better off species" will become dominate on a long enough time line. DNA/Evolution doesn't care about anything, surviving however allows you to mate, and if you had a gene that mutated and gave you a 20% better chance of survival than your peers in the next 5 years then in 1000 generations that mutation is standard simply because it has had a greater opportunity to spread. This should just be common sense. Survival of the Fittest also means mating of the fittest.
Meh, I really don't wanna look into this chromosome fusing nonsense you guys are stumbling over. Chromosomes are made up of genes, which are just protiens ectectectectectect all very known. Chromosomes aren't "whole objects" they can break into any arrangement of pieces, completely merge together ectect. This is all common in the history of evolution, and shouldn't be anything to question. How such a change could be propagated is pretty much just what a stated above. A change as such would survive only if it provided a + % to the mating and surviving abilities of the species.
meh my 2cents + 2 more.
DNA serves many purposes. Hormones, enzyme creation, etc. I think we get too caught up in our geneology. I would rather the prominent leaders in the field of evolution today go back to the beginning and flesh out or at least try to how the general functions of the body came to be. I'm more interested in why complimentary DNA functions create specific enzymes, or not, etc. I think that is more important, at least in the medical field, than a broad overview. Anyways, to settle any doubts, I do believe in evolution, I do however unlike most others question it.
|
On May 21 2009 05:43 Aegraen wrote:
You accept on faith that everything scientists do is infallible as referenced with your first rebuttal. This is the same as religion.
Chromosomes come in pairs yo.
The mutation has to have a purpose for it to proliferate throughout the species changing the previous DNA throughout the entirety of the population.
All of one species does not magically turn into another species, one mutation happens in one organism, who then passes his mutation on to multiple offspring who then pass on etc.
Plus many mutations serve absolutely no purpose and get passed on regardless, till eventually they add up to finally provoke change in that organism.
What function does the fused chromosome serve that created the need to change what was previously usable?
It doesn't have to. Mutations are random.
That is to say; if mutations that serve no beneficial use, or indiscernable, then how does the genome, DNA, species and evolution in general pick and choose what to keep and what not to.
It doesn't.
Yes, all mutations are random, the context within the sentence, meant it was a random (That meaning, directly serving no purpose) mutation, just so happened to be incorporated throughout the entirety of the species. How come, the previous gene was useless and facilitated the need for the new DNA?
I don't know what you mean by "entirety of the species" but mutations happen in one organism.
You once again prove my 'religious zealotry of science' by saying how evolution is a fact, despite its many holes and unanswered questions. In fact evolution is a theory.
I know its cliché but "like the theory of gravity"
I guess you don't get what religious science is; that is the blind faith in science akin to religion. It just means people use science as their religion. Blind faith in something with no philosophy is worse than blind faith in recognized religions that at least teach you morals, way of life, meaning, etc.
It isn't blind faith, its very much visible.
Edit: Yes, I'm quite knowledgable in Biology, astrophysics, and quantum string theory etc. I do enjoy the occasional Dr. Michao Kaku (I know I butchered his name) reading. Continue on however, ad hominem attacks progress the conversation immensely.
Sick name drop yo.
|
On May 21 2009 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
according to Gallup 2001 :
biblical creationism was regarded favourably by 45% of the public, 37% believed in god-guided evolution and only 12% accepted evolution without the guidance of god
I can certainly understand those 37%, thats basically stating that evolution happened but god made it happen
but the largest group being believers of biblical creationism :'(
God guided evolution is a reasonable thing.
But creationism?, come on, no smart and educated adult could posibly believe we just appeared from thin air 6.000 years ago.
The theory of evolution has some holes, while creationism has none, basically because there is nothing that can have holes about it, there is no logic, reason or evidence behind creationism, just the sheer need to believe something out of tradition.
|
How does DNA create hormones?
Don't lie about knowing anything about science. You just guess and have about a 50% succes rate doing so.
God guided evolution is a reasonable thing.
Only in a universe where a god existed in the first place. So it's not reasonable in ours. Even theologically it wouldn't make much sense in our world. Let alone scientifically. Plus, normally something is reasonable when there is evidence. There is none in this case.
|
On May 21 2009 06:32 Diomedes wrote:
Changes could survive even if they aren't beneficial. But a chromosomal mutation would help greatly with speciation. If a species can't speciate into two new species then one can't specialize into a new niche. All attempts would be halted every time the two species get to interbreed again.
This is true (i feel i should say, taken to be as a theoretical truth because i really don't want to go there and it would happen LOL)
A change that doesn't benefit the species can survive, but this is just because it doesn't greatly hinder the survivability of the species. Also the percentage of genes that are actually represented into a species' genepool per animal is pretty small.
Cumulative selection is the key to evolution
EDIT: Also don't read Kaku  He's overrated. His works on String Theory and ect are pretty good. But he's a Pop Science Author, over simplifies and stylizes nonsense to make money. There are much better authors for the layman on the various potential theories of everything. Also his books on the future of technlogy are while interesting, way off in their sense of time. Read Kurzweil for that.
|
aegraen needs to review his biology before making ridiculous claims
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
