Feast your eyes on what a group of scientists call the Holy Grail of human evolution.
A team of researchers Tuesday unveiled an almost perfectly intact fossil of a 47 million-year-old primate they say represents the long-sought missing link between humans and apes.
Officially known as Darwinius masillae, the fossil of the lemur-like creature dubbed Ida shows it had opposable thumbs like humans and fingernails instead of claws.
Scientists say the cat-sized animal's hind legs offer evidence of evolutionary changes that led to primates standing upright - a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
"This specimen is like finding the Lost Ark for archeologists," lead scientist Jorn Hurum said at a ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History.
"It is the scientific equivalent of the Holy Grail. This fossil will probably be the one that will be pictured in all textbooks for the next 100 years."
A team of amateur fossil hunters discovered the near-perfect remains inside a mile-wide crater outside of Frankfurt in 1983.
Experts believe the pit was a volcanic caldera where scores of animals from the Eocene epoch were killed and their remains were kept remarkably well-preserved.
Though the pit has been a bountiful source of other fossils, the inexperienced archeologists didn't realize the value of their find.
Years later, the University of Oslo bought the 95%-intact fossil, and Hurum studied it in secret for two years.
His colleague, Jens Franzen, hailed the discovery as "the eighth wonder of the world."
"We're not dealing with our grand, grand, grandmother, but perhaps with our grand, grand, grand aunt," Franzen said.
The unveiling of the fossil came as part of a carefully-orchestrated publicity campaign unusual for scientific discoveries.
A History Channel film on the discovery will air next week.
A book release and a slew of other documentaries will follow.
The unveiling of the fossil came as part of a carefully-orchestrated publicity campaign unusual for scientific discoveries.
This, to me, is almost as interesting as the find.
The scientific community has never been good at marketing, while religions often excel at it (Scientology & Christianity are particularly good).
In the last few years all I've personally seen is some soundbites in the fields of astronomy and genetics. "The Gay Gene", "The Genius Gene" etc that are easy for media to pick up on and people to talk about without needing to understand any of the underlying theory. I'm just really curious in general how the marketing of science will continue to evolve over time. After all, funding often is granted or denied by public perception (see Stem Cell research) based on popularity or lack thereof among taxpayers. So this is a more serious question than a nerdy scientist enjoying his 20 minutes of public fame.
I don't really get how this is a 'missing link' which is a weazel word, since it's 47 milion years old and found in Germany.
It's a 'missing link' between mammals and primates? Just goes to show you that one can't even point inbetween which fossil a missing link has to be found.
This is awesome news, creationists can finally go fuck themselves.
This is going to give them way less problems then Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Egaster, Homo rufolfensis, Homo georgicus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalis, Homo floresiensis. All clearly not quite homo sapiens but all clearly humans.
And then a whole bunch of creatures that weren't quite human but are either ape-like humans or human-like apes, depening on how you look at it. Like Australopithecus and all those others.
Creationists just ignore that. How is this monkey fossil going to change this?
I only worry that all this dishonest hype will make people indifferent to scientists. There are already tons of people that don't trust them. Now they actually have a reason? How is this the holy grail? What about a ape fossil found in Africa that lives 8 to 6 mya and that looks like Australopithecus but is much older? How about the oldest human fossil found that has full cranium capacity? Say like 1.5 myo? But still not quite fully morphologically human?
Officially known as Darwinius masillae, the fossil of the lemur-like creature dubbed Ida shows it had opposable thumbs like humans and fingernails instead of claws.
The unveiling of the fossil came as part of a carefully-orchestrated publicity campaign unusual for scientific discoveries.
This, to me, is almost as interesting as the find.
The scientific community has never been good at marketing, while religions often excel at it (Scientology & Christianity are particularly good).
In the last few years all I've personally seen is some soundbites in the fields of astronomy and genetics. "The Gay Gene", "The Genius Gene" etc that are easy for media to pick up on and people to talk about without needing to understand any of the underlying theory. I'm just really curious in general how the marketing of science will continue to evolve over time. After all, funding often is granted or denied by public perception (see Stem Cell research) based on popularity or lack thereof among taxpayers. So this is a more serious question than a nerdy scientist enjoying his 20 minutes of public fame.
What are you talking about? Have you missed 'Global Warming'?
Science has been elevated to a religion. People need to take their ideologies out of science, but good luck with that.
Anyways, I'm intrigued where this leads to, but to say science doesn't market well is wrong.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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 doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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.
Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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.
Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be.
Young earth creationists have already had enough evidence to sorta screw that whole party. This link isn't really going to change a whole lot.
afaik, most Christians don't believe in YE creationism.
"Cat-sized", "Lemur-like", "the animal's hind legs offer evidence of evolutionary changes that led to primates standing upright" -- how exactly is that a link between humans and apes? I thought that apes too can walk upright and have an opposing thumb, don't they?
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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.
Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be.
True, but the bible is not to be taken in a literal sense. Interpretations of events foretold in the bible should be taken metaphorically, or in a scientific perspective (Such as moses 'parting the red sea', he actually didn't, but that event did take place due to natural occuring thing called Tides and with the reeds/sandbar; anyways, with that knowledge he led the jews to safety while the 'ignorant' egyptians were drowned due to the tide coming back in), so while yes, Evolution sets to disprove adam and eve, thats about all it does.
And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age.
On May 20 2009 20:50 Slaughter)BiO wrote: And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age.
Even if we take this at face value it creates more problems than it answers. If our descendants were so far in the past (47 million years) (Descendants by that I mean in evolution link/chain directly leading to humans), how did we come so far so fast comparatively from the oldest hominid fossels to where we are now (about 2 mil years). Why did it take 45 million years to get from that evolution link to lucy (2 million years)?
Science hype is the worst of all. False pretenses that science is infallible is on par with religious fundamentalism. I'm interested in hearing why they think it is some magical link, moreso when we know what we do all ready about the link between lucy to today.
They didn't post much about how it looks bipedal. If it were to somehow be adapted to bipedalism it would fuck up so much of the theory in paleo atm. Their theories right now are due to a decrease in forest which forced these apes out of the trees and they gradually changed their habits and developed bipedalism. This was supposed to be like around 8-10mya range. PLUS this thing was found in Europe wtf like all the finds were basically from Africa. Think tugenensis or tchadensis, they were supposed to be among the first for bipedalism. This find kinda seems random, piltdown #2? Lol jk :D Plus its kinda gay that its just now being really examined if it was found over 20 years ago....thats like 20 years of theory that was based on a false premise due to no one decided to make this find known. I want to see what the paleoanthro community has to say about this find before I decide anything.
not like this is gonna matter to creationists, any item that appears to be 47 million years is bound to be put on earth by the devil to test our faith/ is a fabrication anyway because the world is only 6-7000 years old
Plus to all the people who are like "OH YEA IN YOUR FACE CREATIONISTS" stfu plz. It doesn't even disprove creation really, just the story that everything was created as is. People seem to think evolution is the anti creation when it could be said that there was a creation and then evolved. Only the most fundamentalist think the earth is still 6-7k years old. My grandfather is PASTOR and he easily knows that the earth is older then that. The 6-7k thing was from some guy tracking the ages of people in the bible. Clearly not a proper method.
On May 20 2009 20:50 Slaughter)BiO wrote: And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age.
Even if we take this at face value it creates more problems than it answers. If our descendants were so far in the past (47 million years) (Descendants by that I mean in evolution link/chain directly leading to humans), how did we come so far so fast comparatively from the oldest hominid fossels to where we are now (about 2 mil years). Why did it take 45 million years to get from that evolution link to lucy (2 million years)?
why i took so long?
Lucy is very human. Hell, some plastical surgery and make up could make you believe she is one. This thing is for a non scientist as much a human as a cat.
The unveiling of the fossil came as part of a carefully-orchestrated publicity campaign unusual for scientific discoveries.
This, to me, is almost as interesting as the find.
The scientific community has never been good at marketing, while religions often excel at it (Scientology & Christianity are particularly good).
In the last few years all I've personally seen is some soundbites in the fields of astronomy and genetics. "The Gay Gene", "The Genius Gene" etc that are easy for media to pick up on and people to talk about without needing to understand any of the underlying theory. I'm just really curious in general how the marketing of science will continue to evolve over time. After all, funding often is granted or denied by public perception (see Stem Cell research) based on popularity or lack thereof among taxpayers. So this is a more serious question than a nerdy scientist enjoying his 20 minutes of public fame.
First condemn the scientific community for not publicizing their findings well, then attack the scientists for publicizing them, that is so cool.
On May 20 2009 20:50 Slaughter)BiO wrote: And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age.
Even if we take this at face value it creates more problems than it answers. If our descendants were so far in the past (47 million years) (Descendants by that I mean in evolution link/chain directly leading to humans), how did we come so far so fast comparatively from the oldest hominid fossels to where we are now (about 2 mil years). Why did it take 45 million years to get from that evolution link to lucy (2 million years)?
why i took so long?
Lucy is very human. Hell, some plastical surgery and make up could make you believe she is one. This thing is for a non scientist as much a human as a cat.
Lucy is very human if you fix her post cranial skeleton to be better at bipedalism, give her about 2 more feet higher and make her brain larger then the size of an ape. Oh and several morphologies in the mid face as well. Mainly give her a brain that would be capable of some higher thought like humans. Hell habilis was much more advanced and most people do not consider them human.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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.
Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be.
True, but the bible is not to be taken in a literal sense. Interpretations of events foretold in the bible should be taken metaphorically, or in a scientific perspective (Such as moses 'parting the red sea', he actually didn't, but that event did take place due to natural occuring thing called Tides and with the reeds/sandbar; anyways, with that knowledge he led the jews to safety while the 'ignorant' egyptians were drowned due to the tide coming back in), so while yes, Evolution sets to disprove adam and eve, thats about all it does.
Who says the bible is not meant to be taken literally? Maybe it is but of course nowadays we all know it´s the most complete bullshit ever. Metaphorically. hmm... You mean homosexuality and eating oysters is disgusting, for example, has some metaphorical meaning? Dude we are talking about people who lived few thousand years ago. Do you really think they ment things like that to be taken as metaphors? I´m not saying there isn´t any metaphors: thats what most religions are all about, teachings, rules and advice hidden in riddles and stuff. But Christianity has always been a mass religion so the majority was never accustomed to the hidden teachings. So that´s why still even today most people know about Christianitys metaphors the wine and bread thing which isn´t that much afterall. Still the bible has always kept it´s form altough we know much of it´s stuff is wrong or something we today can´t agree with. This is the cause for idiots like creationists and fundamentalists. Too big religious community can´t interpret the stuff in the book whereas religions like the ones Europe used to have had always important knowledge in their riddles and songs. Knowing the true meaning people could always replace old and wrong stuff with new. This is something todays mass religions don´t and can´t have because of the sheer size of religious communities, it takes time to get to know these kind of things. And that´s why todays mass religions have people so anti-change like Christianity has been the last 1800 years.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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.
Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be.
True, but the bible is not to be taken in a literal sense. Interpretations of events foretold in the bible should be taken metaphorically, or in a scientific perspective (Such as moses 'parting the red sea', he actually didn't, but that event did take place due to natural occuring thing called Tides and with the reeds/sandbar; anyways, with that knowledge he led the jews to safety while the 'ignorant' egyptians were drowned due to the tide coming back in), so while yes, Evolution sets to disprove adam and eve, thats about all it does.
Who says the bible is not meant to be taken literally? Maybe it is but of course nowadays we all know it´s the most complete bullshit ever. Metaphorically. hmm... You mean homosexuality and eating oysters is disgusting, for example, has some metaphorical meaning? Dude we are talking about people who lived few thousand years ago. Do you really think they ment things like that to be taken as metaphors? I´m not saying there isn´t any metaphors: thats what most religions are all about, teachings, rules and advice hidden in riddles and stuff. But Christianity has always been a mass religion so the majority was never accustomed to the hidden teachings. So that´s why still even today most people know about Christianitys metaphors the wine and bread thing which isn´t that much afterall. Still the bible has always kept it´s form altough we know much of it´s stuff is wrong or something we today can´t agree with. This is the cause for idiots like creationists and fundamentalists. Too big religious community can´t interpret the stuff in the book whereas religions like the ones Europe used to have had always important knowledge in their riddles and songs. Knowing the true meaning people could always replace old and wrong stuff with new. This is something todays mass religions don´t and can´t have because of the sheer size of religious communities. It takes time to get to know these kind of things. And that´s why todays mass religions have people so anti-change like Christianity has been the last 1800 years.
Also the fact that most people don´t bother to think these kind of things make me kinda sad Fun stuff
On May 20 2009 20:50 Slaughter)BiO wrote: And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age.
Even if we take this at face value it creates more problems than it answers. If our descendants were so far in the past (47 million years) (Descendants by that I mean in evolution link/chain directly leading to humans), how did we come so far so fast comparatively from the oldest hominid fossels to where we are now (about 2 mil years). Why did it take 45 million years to get from that evolution link to lucy (2 million years)?
why i took so long?
Lucy is very human. Hell, some plastical surgery and make up could make you believe she is one. This thing is for a non scientist as much a human as a cat.
/facepalm.
I'm interested to know what to you is 'very human' because you are so far off basis. Another poster all ready answered this, so I won't have to.
That's a nice discovery. I am very interested in the human anthropological order.
Only to add - the evolution is not a theory. It is nowadays regarded as a scientifically proven fact. The christian churches deny that but they are retards anyway. I mean they believe the Earth was made in 6 days like 6000 years ago.
On May 20 2009 21:18 hymn wrote: That's a nice discovery. I am very interested in the human anthropological order.
Only to add - the evolution is not a theory. It is nowadays regarded as a scientifically proven fact. The christian churches deny that but they are retards anyway. I mean they believe the Earth was made in 6 days like 6000 years ago.
Get a clue, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH believes in evolution.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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.
Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be.
True, but the bible is not to be taken in a literal sense. Interpretations of events foretold in the bible should be taken metaphorically, or in a scientific perspective (Such as moses 'parting the red sea', he actually didn't, but that event did take place due to natural occuring thing called Tides and with the reeds/sandbar; anyways, with that knowledge he led the jews to safety while the 'ignorant' egyptians were drowned due to the tide coming back in), so while yes, Evolution sets to disprove adam and eve, thats about all it does.
Who says the bible is not meant to be taken literally? Maybe it is but of course nowadays we all know it´s the most complete bullshit ever. Metaphorically. hmm... You mean homosexuality and eating oysters is disgusting, for example, has some metaphorical meaning? Dude we are talking about people who lived few thousand years ago. Do you really think they ment things like that to be taken as metaphors? I´m not saying there isn´t any metaphors: thats what most religions are all about, teachings, rules and advice hidden in riddles and stuff. But Christianity has always been a mass religion so the majority was never accustomed to the hidden teachings. So that´s why still even today most people know about Christianitys metaphors the wine and bread thing which isn´t that much afterall. Still the bible has always kept it´s form altough we know much of it´s stuff is wrong or something we today can´t agree with. This is the cause for idiots like creationists and fundamentalists. Too big religious community can´t interpret the stuff in the book whereas religions like the ones Europe used to have had always important knowledge in their riddles and songs. Knowing the true meaning people could always replace old and wrong stuff with new. This is something todays mass religions don´t and can´t have because of the sheer size of religious communities, it takes time to get to know these kind of things. And that´s why todays mass religions have people so anti-change like Christianity has been the last 1800 years.
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.
Homosexuality during the roman times was lavished by the romans. It's no wonder (the christians who despised the romans) they would hate all that is associated with them (Why Jesus is a pauper, in contrast to lavish romans and their lifestyle).
Sure, there are some out there stuff, like god creating the world in 7 days and adam and eve, and jonah, etc., but most is documented events that occured during the times of the romans (you just have to decipher the prose with scientific knowledge and archaelogical proof).
On May 20 2009 20:50 Slaughter)BiO wrote: And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age.
Even if we take this at face value it creates more problems than it answers. If our descendants were so far in the past (47 million years) (Descendants by that I mean in evolution link/chain directly leading to humans), how did we come so far so fast comparatively from the oldest hominid fossels to where we are now (about 2 mil years). Why did it take 45 million years to get from that evolution link to lucy (2 million years)?
why i took so long?
Lucy is very human. Hell, some plastical surgery and make up could make you believe she is one. This thing is for a non scientist as much a human as a cat.
Lucy is very human if you fix her post cranial skeleton to be better at bipedalism, give her about 2 more feet higher and make her brain larger then the size of an ape. Oh and several morphologies in the mid face as well. Mainly give her a brain that would be capable of some higher thought like humans. Hell habilis was much more advanced and most people do not consider them human.
I would call that very human compared to this new find. Yes, i overexagerated a *bit* there.
Officially known as Darwinius masillae, the fossil of the lemur-like creature dubbed Ida shows it had opposable thumbs like humans and fingernails instead of claws.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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.
Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be.
True, but the bible is not to be taken in a literal sense. Interpretations of events foretold in the bible should be taken metaphorically, or in a scientific perspective (Such as moses 'parting the red sea', he actually didn't, but that event did take place due to natural occuring thing called Tides and with the reeds/sandbar; anyways, with that knowledge he led the jews to safety while the 'ignorant' egyptians were drowned due to the tide coming back in), so while yes, Evolution sets to disprove adam and eve, thats about all it does.
Who says the bible is not meant to be taken literally? Maybe it is but of course nowadays we all know it´s the most complete bullshit ever. Metaphorically. hmm... You mean homosexuality and eating oysters is disgusting, for example, has some metaphorical meaning? Dude we are talking about people who lived few thousand years ago. Do you really think they ment things like that to be taken as metaphors? I´m not saying there isn´t any metaphors: thats what most religions are all about, teachings, rules and advice hidden in riddles and stuff. But Christianity has always been a mass religion so the majority was never accustomed to the hidden teachings. So that´s why still even today most people know about Christianitys metaphors the wine and bread thing which isn´t that much afterall. Still the bible has always kept it´s form altough we know much of it´s stuff is wrong or something we today can´t agree with. This is the cause for idiots like creationists and fundamentalists. Too big religious community can´t interpret the stuff in the book whereas religions like the ones Europe used to have had always important knowledge in their riddles and songs. Knowing the true meaning people could always replace old and wrong stuff with new. This is something todays mass religions don´t and can´t have because of the sheer size of religious communities, it takes time to get to know these kind of things. And that´s why todays mass religions have people so anti-change like Christianity has been the last 1800 years.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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
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.
Scientists definitely suck at PR. Even this is nowhere to be found on any news site right now, even though it's pretty amazing, at the very least because of the well preserved nature of the fossil.
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.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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.
a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
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
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.
a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
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
This is a good point. I'm waiting for someone to explain this one. I am of course assuming what irishash wrote is true
On May 20 2009 20:50 Slaughter)BiO wrote: And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age.
Even if we take this at face value it creates more problems than it answers. If our descendants were so far in the past (47 million years) (Descendants by that I mean in evolution link/chain directly leading to humans), how did we come so far so fast comparatively from the oldest hominid fossels to where we are now (about 2 mil years). Why did it take 45 million years to get from that evolution link to lucy (2 million years)?
why i took so long?
Lucy is very human. Hell, some plastical surgery and make up could make you believe she is one. This thing is for a non scientist as much a human as a cat.
Lucy is very human if you fix her post cranial skeleton to be better at bipedalism, give her about 2 more feet higher and make her brain larger then the size of an ape. Oh and several morphologies in the mid face as well. Mainly give her a brain that would be capable of some higher thought like humans. Hell habilis was much more advanced and most people do not consider them human.
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!
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.
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.
On May 20 2009 20:00 Aegraen wrote: [..] PS: Let's not forget the Hydroncollider (sp?).
so it collides hydrons? its true that it mainly collides protons, i still assume that you are not like the smartest troll ever but meant the large hadron collider.
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.
To be fair, those people are generally found between in the bumblefuck lands between the two coasts, which have a much larger and much more educated population. Not all of us are dumb, I swear!
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.
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.
First off, the math doesn't add up. If two chromosomes fused that means that there would be one left, which would mean we would need 47, not 46. (48, one fuses with another, creates one, thus you deduct one = 47). Explain how it is a fused chromosome can make both chromosomes disappear completely.
Secondly, what is the purpose of the mutation to necessitate its proliferation. Evolution isn't random mutations being propagated throughout species. It is direct selection by natural processes (usually occuring by death of the less efficient, or inefficient previous designs (Use the bird beak example here)). There are many holes in evolution, in the evolution tree, and what we theorize. It is far from being a fact. I know to religious science folks, this is blasphemy, but most scientists know that there are very few hard facts in science. Most things we take for general knowledge today are still theories, and we strive to find holes, to update, to fill the gaps at all times, strengthening and changing the theory. This has happened since the inception of 'science'.
Anyways, what is more interesting to me is trying to re-engineer dinosaur features from unused chicken genes/DNA (Genes/DNA that serve no purpose anymore) (sorry, forget the terminology for the genes/DNA off the top of my head). I wants my dinosaurs back!
Lastly, we know it can happen, and does happen, but why did that mutation not die out. What purpose did it serve. Those are the questions, merely saying it can happen, doesn't mean the species as a whole suddenly incorporates every mutation.
On May 20 2009 20:00 Aegraen wrote: [..] PS: Let's not forget the Hydroncollider (sp?).
so it collides hydrons? its true that it mainly collides protons, i still assume that you are not like the smartest troll ever but meant the large hadron collider.
I'm not a troll, and yes I meant Hadron. My bad I had 'hydron' in my head this morning for some reason. Lord knows you can't make one simple omission/mistake around these here parts.
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 :'(
On May 21 2009 05:22 Aegraen wrote: First off, the math doesn't add up. If two chromosomes fused that means that there would be one left, which would mean we would need 47, not 46. (48, one fuses with another, creates one, thus you deduct one = 47). Explain how it is a fused chromosome can make both chromosomes disappear completely.
This shows your complete lack of knowledge about this subject. You think people can publish in Nature with an obvious calculation error of 48-1=46? You think that would slip past a peer review?
If you don't, why didn't you make this comment with a certain amount of hesitation?
Anyway, why does this even matter. We know it fused. Even if it was really extremely puzzling how that could have happened, that doesn't discredit the hypothesis that it did. Because in this case there is no alternative explanation.
Secondly, what is the purpose of the mutation to necessitate its proliferation.
What? First of all, why would there be one? Secondly, why does it even matter? We don't know the function of every gene in your genome. Doesn't mean we can't know we have DNA.
Evolution isn't random mutations being propagated throughout species.
All mutations are random. And are you implying a chromosome fusion wouldn't be able to be propagated? A deletion of a chromosome can't be propagated. That's why it has to be a fusion, which was confirmed. Actually the fusion of a chromosome would be a good step towards speciation, which of course needs to happen.
There are many holes in evolution, in the evolution tree, and what we theorize. It is far from being a fact.
No. Just because we don't have a totally complete evolution tree that has nothing to do with how valid evolution is. Imagine fossilization is impossible. Would that mean evolution is impossible?
We don't even know what creates gravity. Yet that doesn't make anyone doubt the force of gravity. I would say that gravity is a bigger hole than the theory of evolution. For one the mechanisms are almost totally unknown where the other they are completely known.
I know to religious science folks, this is blasphemy,
Why would it be blasphemy to religious scientists? I don't get it.
Do you know anything about science, at all? Like high school biology and physics?
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.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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.
Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be.
No, no it does not. It just goes against the religious fundamentalists interpretation of how we came about. There are literally thousands of interpretations for every single line said in the bible, torah, Quran, etc.
On May 21 2009 05:22 Aegraen wrote: First off, the math doesn't add up. If two chromosomes fused that means that there would be one left, which would mean we would need 47, not 46. (48, one fuses with another, creates one, thus you deduct one = 47). Explain how it is a fused chromosome can make both chromosomes disappear completely.
This shows your complete lack of knowledge about this subject. You think people can publish in Nature with an obvious calculation error of 48-1=46? You think that would slip past a peer review?
If you don't, why didn't you make this comment with a certain amount of hesitation?
Secondly, what is the purpose of the mutation to necessitate its proliferation.
What? First of all, why would there be one? Secondly, why does it even matter? We don't know the function of every gene in your genome. Doesn't mean we can't know we have DNA.
Evolution isn't random mutations being propagated throughout species.
All mutations are random. And are you implying a chromosome fusion wouldn't be able to be propagated? A deletion of a chromosome can't be propagated. That's why it has to be a fusion, which was confirmed. Actually the fusion of a chromosome would be a good step towards speciation, which of course needs to happen.
There are many holes in evolution, in the evolution tree, and what we theorize. It is far from being a fact.
No. Just because we don't have a totally complete evolution tree that has nothing to do with how valid evolution is. Imagine fossilization is impossible. Would that mean evolution is impossible?
We don't even know what creates gravity. Yet that doesn't make anyone doubt the force of gravity. I would say that gravity is a bigger hole than the theory of evolution. For one the mechanisms are almost totally unknown where the other they are completely known.
I know to religious science folks, this is blasphemy,
Why would it be blasphemy to religious scientists? I don't get it.
Do you know anything about science, at all? Like high school biology and physics?
You accept on faith that everything scientists do is infallible as referenced with your first rebuttal. This is the same as religion.
Evolution is based on environmental changes necessitating / making use of mutations that are beneficial in the current environment. It matters because that is what evolution hinges on. The mutation has to have a purpose for it to proliferate throughout the species changing the previous DNA throughout the entirety of the population. What function does the fused chromosome serve that created the need to change what was previously usable? Evolution answers these questions. If you can't answer that simple question, how do you expect us to accept it? 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. We have all ready answered that question, yet you balk at the question asked about the function of evolution with this particular scenario. If it smells fishy, it usually is.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
On May 20 2009 21:18 hymn wrote: That's a nice discovery. I am very interested in the human anthropological order.
Only to add - the evolution is not a theory. It is nowadays regarded as a scientifically proven fact. The christian churches deny that but they are retards anyway. I mean they believe the Earth was made in 6 days like 6000 years ago.
It's an extremely well supported theory but still not a fact, that's just the way science works.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 05:08 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 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 06:14 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
yes it would be pretty nice if you could make the observations, formulate the hyopothesis(es?), conduct the experiments and write the every theory ever instead of having to trust peer reviewed articles and accepted theories.
too bad you would probably die of old age before you made any significant progress, somewhere you just have to trust that the scientific community will present the most up to date model of the universe (or go forth and bravely do science yourself, find a more fitting theory). there will always be holes, but you do not scoff at the best because it isn't perfection.
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.
First. God guiding evolution isn't a "reasonable" thing to say because we have no EVIDENCE AT ALL of such a thing occurring. You can't apply something like that to science. Evolution is science. That is just fairytale fantasizing....
I'm not sitting here arguing for or against the existence of god. I'm simply stating the obviousness of the situation. God is irrelevant because we have no evidence for or against. The burden of proof on the existence of something which cannot be proven or disproven lies on those that believe. Just like if i believed that gravity was purple i would need some evidence or be told to STFU. The same should follow.
and to say that creationism doesn't have holes because there is no logic, reason, or evidence is like saying that black hole isn't there because we don't see it. Those are the holes. but you know this. I'm just rambling at this point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For evolution to completely differentiate between species the less equipped have to die off. Genes are generally skipped a generation, therefore you will never have 100% speciation without some form of environmental isolation because sooner or later, the dominant gene will come out ahead. It's not just a, mate fuck fest, and the mutation is automatically passed to every successive generation. Thats not how the process works.
okay like you have a bunch of random mutations that happen occasionally some mutations are beneficial and improve the chance of procreation these are more likely to result in permanent change some mutations are negative and decrease the chance of procreation these are less likely to result in permanent change..
Where did you learn biology? Where are you comming up with these things?
First of all, no one has to die off for evolution to occur. If the "lesser equiped" has to die off for the new species to exist, we would only have one species now.
and genes are skipped a generation? lol you are thinking of sex linked recessive traits. It doesnt matter for somatic chromosomes.
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.
For evolution to completely differentiate between species the less equipped have to die off. Genes are generally skipped a generation, therefore you will never have 100% speciation without some form of environmental isolation because sooner or later, the dominant gene will come out ahead. It's not just a, mate fuck fest, and the mutation is automatically passed to every successive generation. Thats not how the process works.
.............................................. For one. 50% of the genes from each parent are passed on. The % of each parent's genes and the total genes displayed is not 100% Yes. That genes "generally" skip a generation is almost a comical statement in my opinion. Genes can't "SKIP" generations.. They can get passed on and remain dormant. Totally different things.
And At many points in history numerous types of homo X species has lived simultaneously. It's not even about single genes coming out ahead, it's about the overall system coming out ahead. There is such a ridiculously large number of genes and evolution has occured over such a ridulously long amount of time. You are simply oversimplifying and ignoring the obvious massive scope of the situation.
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.
For evolution to completely differentiate between species the less equipped have to die off. Genes are generally skipped a generation, therefore you will never have 100% speciation without some form of environmental isolation because sooner or later, the dominant gene will come out ahead. It's not just a, mate fuck fest, and the mutation is automatically passed to every successive generation. Thats not how the process works.
Holy shit duh. But with a 25%(lol Mendellian genetics - it's a good approximation.) transfer chance x number of kids, shit's gonna get it. Then they fuck amongst themselves and increase transfer chance etc. etc. And the "less equipped" don't have to die off, they just fuck each other and make "less equipped" babies who become a different species from the "better off" crew.
I can not stand how poorly worded and often inaccurate popular science articles are. Its really ridiculous how much dis-information and retardation is passed on.
edit: oh dear, then i read this thread. back to my work...
a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
I found this amusing. It's impossible to "confirm" a scientific theory, even a straightforward one like universal gravitation, without having complete and accurate data for everything, everywhere, at all times. Scientific theories are true until data surfaces that conflicts with the theory and/or a theory that better explains phenomena becomes widely accepted. Evolution is just the current theory, much like universal gravitation was from its acceptance until ~100 years ago. I don't say this to discredit evolution, just to point out that this fossil doesn't prove or confirm evolution any more than a high school physics experiment confirms gravitation.
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
is there something about two chromosomes fusing together that requires several generations? is the fusion of two chromosones not a singular mutation?
On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote: i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible.
So it's impossible. Or are you implying you think humans evolved 100 miljion years ago rather than 4? I don't get it.
...and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places.
I don't even know what you mean by this but this is very suspect of a very big misunderstanding of genetics.
this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time
It takes the time of one cell division.
I suggest you reread my post and explain to me why you got all this totally backwards. Because either you didn't even read my post or you just ignored it outright. I think this is pretty amazing to use the clearest proof for evolution against it.
Also, you claim scientists think this. Please provide a reference.
jeppew, the guy is almost certainly an unknowing victim of creationist propaganda if you ask me. You are totally right.
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation?
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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.
Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be.
True, but the bible is not to be taken in a literal sense. Interpretations of events foretold in the bible should be taken metaphorically, or in a scientific perspective (Such as moses 'parting the red sea', he actually didn't, but that event did take place due to natural occuring thing called Tides and with the reeds/sandbar; anyways, with that knowledge he led the jews to safety while the 'ignorant' egyptians were drowned due to the tide coming back in), so while yes, Evolution sets to disprove adam and eve, thats about all it does.
Who says the bible is not meant to be taken literally? Maybe it is but of course nowadays we all know it´s the most complete bullshit ever. Metaphorically. hmm... You mean homosexuality and eating oysters is disgusting, for example, has some metaphorical meaning? Dude we are talking about people who lived few thousand years ago. Do you really think they ment things like that to be taken as metaphors? I´m not saying there isn´t any metaphors: thats what most religions are all about, teachings, rules and advice hidden in riddles and stuff. But Christianity has always been a mass religion so the majority was never accustomed to the hidden teachings. So that´s why still even today most people know about Christianitys metaphors the wine and bread thing which isn´t that much afterall. Still the bible has always kept it´s form altough we know much of it´s stuff is wrong or something we today can´t agree with. This is the cause for idiots like creationists and fundamentalists. Too big religious community can´t interpret the stuff in the book whereas religions like the ones Europe used to have had always important knowledge in their riddles and songs. Knowing the true meaning people could always replace old and wrong stuff with new. This is something todays mass religions don´t and can´t have because of the sheer size of religious communities, it takes time to get to know these kind of things. And that´s why todays mass religions have people so anti-change like Christianity has been the last 1800 years.
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.
Homosexuality during the roman times was lavished by the romans. It's no wonder (the christians who despised the romans) they would hate all that is associated with them (Why Jesus is a pauper, in contrast to lavish romans and their lifestyle).
Sure, there are some out there stuff, like god creating the world in 7 days and adam and eve, and jonah, etc., but most is documented events that occured during the times of the romans (you just have to decipher the prose with scientific knowledge and archaelogical proof).
The Bible as it is today was compiled by Roman bishops. It's anything but anti-Roman, it's as pro-establishment as you can get. Even the whole Christ being crucified by the Roman authorities is blamed on Jews (Romans hated the Jews because they refused to merge into the Roman superculture (Jewish belief that there is one God and that they are the chosen people of that God)). A major Jewish rebellion undermined the most successful Roman invasion of the Selucid Persian Empire and led to the retribution in which the Jewish state was destroyed and the Jews spread through Europe. Also Jesus spent most of his life as a craftsman, a solid Roman job. Maybe the gospels before the first Bible were anti-Roman, maybe they weren't. We don't know though because they've been sealed in the Vatican archives for the past 1700 years. All we know is the what the gospels that were selected to form the Bible say and that was after the Romanisation of the religion.
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
You make statements yet don't provide any supporting evidence other than your word. And since your arguing to prove a point and such information would help your point if it aligned with your view. I can only assume it doesn't, or that you do not know the information.
You say that the fusing of a pair of chromosomes is possible but it couldn't happen in such a short period of time. Yet you do not provide how short of a time you are talking about or any other evidence. Yet we know it did happen, and I'm sure there is a sufficient timeline and knowledge of the subject. If this is really an issue I could dig through a book and cite some information. I however think this is futile and irrelevant to the theory.
However, I think that's all irrelevant and I'm not going to argue it because it's trivial in the theory of evolution, and your further statements provide evidence that your understanding is lacking.
If you knew anything about evolution you would know that it would be impossible for life to "adapt quickly" What would happen would be that most would die and few would be left. This is not adapting quickly this is weeding out. Nothing happens quickly in evolution.
The real question is why do you think it matters that we have 2 less chromosomes? It doesn't. It's just more evidence for evolution. Where is the problem?
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
You make statements yet don't provide any supporting evidence other than your word. And since your arguing to prove a point and such information would help your point if it aligned with your view. I can only assume it doesn't, or that you do not know the information.
You say that the fusing of a pair of chromosomes is possible but it couldn't happen in such a short period of time. Yet you do not provide how short of a time you are talking about or any other evidence. Yet we know it did happen, and I'm sure there is a sufficient timeline and knowledge of the subject. If this is really an issue I could dig through a book and cite some information. I however think this is futile and irrelevant to the theory.
However, I think that's all irrelevant and I'm not going to argue it because it's trivial in the theory of evolution, and your further statements provide evidence that your understanding is lacking.
If you knew anything about evolution you would know that it would be impossible for life to "adapt quickly" What would happen would be that most would die and few would be left. This is not adapting quickly this is weeding out. Nothing happens quickly in evolution.
The real question is why do you think it matters that we have 2 less chromosomes? It doesn't. It's just more evidence for evolution. Where is the problem?
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation?
A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
As a christian I am offended and plan to remind these so called Scientists that they will be burn in hell for the arrogance, as well as their worship of such a pagan idea.
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation?
A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
What do you think evolution is? Evolution is mutation occuring in 1 generation and then getting passed on for many generations. It's cumulative Change. Single Step by Single Step. So you are then arguing that evolution is not cumulative change occurring step by step?
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation?
A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation?
A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
i think he was refering to the fusion of the chromosomes.
"but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur."
is pretty missleading, you can't say that evolution has "happened", it's a continous process. you could however say that speciation or evolving something complex like flaggelum will take a long time.
think of it as a person walking, you can't say that walking in general will take a long time, but you can say that walking from washington to china will take a long time.
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation?
A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
Wut. The definition of evolution is genetic change from one generation to the next.
This isnt the missing link. There is still a debate whether or not the term "mising link" is even valid :S Also, its not precise if this is the same line that :"missing link" is needed to be found.
This is a huge discovery, but i think the thread topic is misleading since its jumping to conclusions, as well as some hype by the media.
On May 21 2009 06:35 Aegraen wrote: Anyways, to settle any doubts, I do believe in evolution, I do however unlike most others question it.
lol. This + your comments on global warming + your kaku namedrop = LOL
You are not a qualified scientist. In "Questioning" these things you aren't accomplishing anything but stunting your intellectual growth. I'm not saying that you shouldn't question things. I'm saying you shouldn't question things in the manner you are going about it.
Just look up and realize the scope of the scientific community and the amount of information that is checked, doubled checked, peer reviewed and then passed on to you. Don't believe everything you're told obviously, but just because you don't immediately grasp something or when something seems wrong. Look into it, don't just say it's wrong. This would be called an opinion. And opinions are utterly valueless.
Your comment about having "pages and pages" of evidence that disproves global warming for instance. I don't care if you have 1000 pages of "irrefutable" evidence that global warming isn't occurring. What does that matter to the 100000 pages of "irrefutable" evidence that global warming is occurring? There really is no question of validity. I don't care how many books for the layman you read on quantum string theory, evolution, and climate change you are still not a qualified voice on the subject. Just like I, who have read the same type of books, am no authoritative voice on those subjects.
The truth is - don't believe everything you read, and spend a lot of time researching people, institutions, and publishers to find what information you can gather is the most accurate. That is all any of us in this world can do. I agree that there is a huge difference between the bias and ignorant scientific zealotry you have spoken of, and attempting to learn the truth. However noone is completely unbias. But everyone could certainly try a little harder. The amount of information out there is absurdly large. All you can do is challenge everything until you can find the most realiable information. From your statements you need to work on that.
Meh I've lost focus, I had a much greater point, but I tire of this drivel and I hate the fact that my entire point, and innately points of this nature are always self defeating. Telling someone not to be arrogant in any form can only come off as arrogance. So I may not reply. This has lost it's luster.
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation?
A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
What do you think evolution is? Evolution is mutation occuring in 1 generation and then getting passed on for many generations. It's cumulative Change. Single Step by Single Step. So you are then arguing that evolution is not cumulative change occurring step by step?
My reasoning behind the statement is, yes, you can have a mutation occur in one generation, however until that mutation can be passed through the species, then it is not evolution, at least not in any consequence to the species. In that generation, and surely has many times, that mutation has never reached the species because that individual, or that select group with the right mutation died before reproductive age, or never reproduced. Therefore, how can you quantify a single mutation, no matter how significant, evolution if it never was propagated throughout the species?
Evolution by nature, cannot take place within one generation. You honestly believe it can? That goes against the laws of nature and reproduction.
To some of you guys who seem to be interested in evolution and all that I would suggest "Growth of Biological Thought" by Ernst Mayer. Very good book that is basically a history of biological theory and it does this by looking at problems from their 1st inception to today. It covers evolution and DNA and such and is a very good read and explains these problems very deeply. I had to read it for my advanced biological anthropology class this semester.
On another note, people sometimes seem to forget that evolution is probabilistic.Survival of the fittest is such a poor word to use for it and it was only tacked on to evolution because of that guy who coined the term social Darwinism. A creature could have all the advantages in the world and still lose out. Mutations are not something that drive evolution and infact their role is kinda down played now a days in evolutionary thought. (they used to be thought to be THE driving force). Infact genetic differentiation between species actually comes mostly from benign mutations because they have the best chance of being passed on. So many factors in Evo that is really is quite complex and amazing. populations of the same species can easily become isolated and develop differently, or develop the same based on the distribution of the genes in each pop. A small pop can break off and produce a founder effect. etc etc etc its not a neat and easy to define process.
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation?
A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
What do you think evolution is? Evolution is mutation occuring in 1 generation and then getting passed on for many generations. It's cumulative Change. Single Step by Single Step. So you are then arguing that evolution is not cumulative change occurring step by step?
My reasoning behind the statement is, yes, you can have a mutation occur in one generation, however until that mutation can be passed through the species, then it is not evolution, at least not in any consequence to the species. In that generation, and surely has many times, that mutation has never reached the species because that individual, or that select group with the right mutation died before reproductive age, or never reproduced. Therefore, how can you quantify a single mutation, no matter how significant, evolution if it never was propagated throughout the species?
Evolution by nature, cannot take place within one generation. You honestly believe it can? That goes against the laws of nature and reproduction.
hmmm. This is primarily a case of semantics then?
If a mutation occurs, and then it causes the species to die it is still evolution. The number of generations isn't really the deciding factor. I suppose we use the term "evolution" to quantify the step by step cumulative change in gene pools. If a species mutates/evolves into a less efficient form and thus dies, this is still called evolution. Evolution does not have to denote actual progress in the survivability. Just change.
Evolution doesn't have to carry the connotation of progress. The argument that because a mutation occured and then the specimen died before it was able to replicate is just a manifestation of survival of the fittest and the natural variance of every day life (perhaps the mutation actually made it more efficient, and it died by chance).
We don't quantify a single mutation, evolution is just the quantifying of millions+ of single cumulative mutations.
There is no purpose to evolution. You talk about evolution as if it has a destination, as if there is some goal or direction. There is just a lot of time and a lot of different ways to arrange genes, and ectectect......
EDIT: probabilistic ah exactly the word I needed when i was writing this post...
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.
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation?
A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
What do you think evolution is? Evolution is mutation occuring in 1 generation and then getting passed on for many generations. It's cumulative Change. Single Step by Single Step. So you are then arguing that evolution is not cumulative change occurring step by step?
My reasoning behind the statement is, yes, you can have a mutation occur in one generation, however until that mutation can be passed through the species, then it is not evolution, at least not in any consequence to the species. In that generation, and surely has many times, that mutation has never reached the species because that individual, or that select group with the right mutation died before reproductive age, or never reproduced. Therefore, how can you quantify a single mutation, no matter how significant, evolution if it never was propagated throughout the species?
Evolution by nature, cannot take place within one generation. You honestly believe it can? That goes against the laws of nature and reproduction.
hmmm. This is primarily a case of semantics then?
If a mutation occurs, and then it causes the species to die it is still evolution. The number of generations isn't really the deciding factor. I suppose we use the term "evolution" to quantify the step by step cumulative change in gene pools. If a species mutates/evolves into a less efficient form and thus dies, this is still called evolution. Evolution does not have to denote actual progress in the survivability. Just change.
Evolution doesn't have to carry the connotation of progress. The argument that because a mutation occured and then the specimen died before it was able to replicate is just a manifestation of survival of the fittest and the natural variance of every day life (perhaps the mutation actually made it more efficient, and it died by chance).
We don't quantify a single mutation, evolution is just the quantifying of millions+ of single cumulative mutations.
There is no purpose to evolution. You talk about evolution as if it has a destination, as if there is some goal or direction. There is just a lot of time and a lot of different ways to arrange genes, and ectectect......
EDIT: probabilistic ah exactly the word I needed when i was writing this post...
Succinctly, evolution cannot be harmful in that specific environment (Of course evolution that allowed you to become specifically adept in one environment will be your doom when the climate changes), because if it is then the species goes extinct, and are no better off than they were beforehand. Evolution implies progress, or in any case, survival. How can you 'evolve' and dieout, that is not evolution, because it doesn't matter if you had the mutation or not.
can someone plz answer Aegraen question how even a single mutation in one or two specimen can spread into the entire species in a short timespan? or wasnt that what you said? that you had evidence that some spread of this kind happend very fast?
A mutation can spread quickly in a small population. In a larger population if 1 individual has a mutation and spreads it to his offspring there are still many other genes in the pool. but in a smaller population it can spread pretty quickly. This where a founder effect or isolation of a small population within a species can lead to a relatively rapid speciation. And evolution is basically defined today as the change in the gene frequencies in a population from generation to generation so basically evolution is always happening. It is constantly there because gene frequencies change from generation to generation.
On May 21 2009 09:50 aqui wrote: can someone plz answer Aegraen question how even a single mutation in one or two specimen can spread into the entire species in a short timespan? or wasnt that what you said? that you had evidence that some spread of this kind happend very fast?
My original point was that, the discrepancy between the speed from one point to the other is comparatively disproportionate to such a drastic extreme, that it is highly unlikely that this fossil means much, and if it does, then it begs the question, what sped up the process to super extreme mode when it was for all intents and purposes laxidasicle (omg, im so tired can't spell right now) beforehand.
What facilitated the rapid evolutionary transition? We know what climate was like, and where they inhabited, so, what else then could it have been? Too many questions opened up if this find is of any significance. Lets see if anyone even bothers to ask the questions needed to be done.
Since this specimen was found way outside of Africa it also could be just an evolutionary dead end that really did not have an impact on human evolution. Just because it seems to have characters to be in that line doesn't mean it evolved that way but then didn't go anywhere. In reality we need to know more
Succinctly, evolution cannot be harmful in that specific environment (Of course evolution that allowed you to become specifically adept in one environment will be your doom when the climate changes), because if it is then the species goes extinct, and are no better off than they were beforehand. Evolution implies progress, or in any case, survival. How can you 'evolve' and dieout, that is not evolution, because it doesn't matter if you had the mutation or not.
Evolution =/= any change in DNA code / genes etc.
...
1) You say: "Evolution implies progress, or in any case, survival" No. Evolution only is quantified change over numerous mutations.
2) You say: "How can you 'evolve' and dieout, that is not evolution, because it doesn't matter if you had the mutation or not." No. Where did you get that information? EVOLUTION IS PROBABILISTIC. You are confusing the ENDS with the MEANS.
Evolution = Cumalitive mutations. Mutations = ANY CHANGE Thus EVOLUTION = ANY CHANGE
Where are you getting your definition? Cite 1 top evolutionary biologist that says that evolution is ONLY PROGRESS.
-EVOLUTION IS PROBABILISTIC- reread that and then do it again.
There is no purpose, direction or meaning. You are confusing the fact that due to the nature of our enviroment survival of the fittest holds true. Even though the fittest surviving has NOTHING to do with evolution at it's core. In the same sense that our perception of the sky being blue has nothing to do with the sky itself. Survival of the Fittest is the concequence of our perception on Evolution. It's a simple truism.
I don't have time to read the whole thread right now, but you guys should check this news out on peer reviewed journals, provided you have access to them. You'd find that all the hype is just for a fossil that doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. Popular news outlets aren't to be trusted with sciency stuff. They tend to disort the news beyond recognition just to attract more readers.
On May 21 2009 09:50 aqui wrote: can someone plz answer Aegraen question how even a single mutation in one or two specimen can spread into the entire species in a short timespan? or wasnt that what you said? that you had evidence that some spread of this kind happend very fast?
My original point was that, the discrepancy between the speed from one point to the other is comparatively disproportionate to such a drastic extreme, that it is highly unlikely that this fossil means much, and if it does, then it begs the question, what sped up the process to super extreme mode when it was for all intents and purposes laxidasicle (omg, im so tired can't spell right now) beforehand.
What facilitated the rapid evolutionary transition? We know what climate was like, and where they inhabited, so, what else then could it have been? Too many questions opened up if this find is of any significance. Lets see if anyone even bothers to ask the questions needed to be done.
I'm curious, and I genuinely mean it when I say please cite your sources? What evidence does this bring up at all that there was any discrepancy in the rate of evolution? Rapid evolutionary transition? Please expand and explain because i see no discrepancies?
and I agree w/ Cpt. Cocaine, but seriously.... theres no discrepancies and this discovery really tells us nothing new?
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote: So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Woah, hold on a sec. No one here is claiming the theory of evolution is infallible. If you want to provide some evidence that evolution doesn't happen then go ahead. How us the mechanism of muscles related to evolution? That's a genuine question and not rhetoric.
The fact that we can't come up with an explanation for multicellular organisms doesn't disprove evolution, it just shows that there is a gap in our knowledge. It doesn't mean that all the other pieces of evidence pointing towards evolution can be discounted. What is your alternate theory if you don't believe in evolution?
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote: So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Woah, hold on a sec. No one here is claiming the theory of evolution is infallible. If you want to provide some evidence that evolution doesn't happen then go ahead. How us the mechanism of muscles related to evolution? That's a genuine question and not rhetoric.
The fact that we can't come up with an explanation for multicellular organisms doesn't disprove evolution, it just shows that there is a gap in our knowledge. It doesn't mean that all the other pieces of evidence pointing towards evolution can be discounted. What is your alternate theory if you don't believe in evolution?
I agree with your post in general but we HAVE come up with explanations for multicellular organisms. Its just difficult to prove 100%.
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote: When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote: When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Can someone translate this for me?
He doesnt know what hes talking about anyways... "We don't understand the mechanisms of muscles?" LMAO
Maybe you don't but many many people do Misrah Sorry your understanding of biology is that weak. Open a biology book sometime.
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote: So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Woah, hold on a sec. No one here is claiming the theory of evolution is infallible. If you want to provide some evidence that evolution doesn't happen then go ahead. How us the mechanism of muscles related to evolution? That's a genuine question and not rhetoric.
The fact that we can't come up with an explanation for multicellular organisms doesn't disprove evolution, it just shows that there is a gap in our knowledge. It doesn't mean that all the other pieces of evidence pointing towards evolution can be discounted. What is your alternate theory if you don't believe in evolution?
EXACTLY. It's not that we find the current theory of evolutionary biology infalliable or even any percentile complete, this is all irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that evolution is the -only- current SCIENTIFIC THEORY that has a chance of explaining our origins in such a manner.
I do not feel like making -another- post on the difference of a regular theory and a scientific theory. What is even more amazing to me is that there is never no shortage of people to come out and say LOL look at those people actually believing that theory, yet those same people take gravity for granite, when we know more about what evolution has to do with life than gravity has to do with anything.
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote: So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Woah, hold on a sec. No one here is claiming the theory of evolution is infallible. If you want to provide some evidence that evolution doesn't happen then go ahead. How us the mechanism of muscles related to evolution? That's a genuine question and not rhetoric.
The fact that we can't come up with an explanation for multicellular organisms doesn't disprove evolution, it just shows that there is a gap in our knowledge. It doesn't mean that all the other pieces of evidence pointing towards evolution can be discounted. What is your alternate theory if you don't believe in evolution?
I agree with your post in general but we HAVE come up with explanations for multicellular organisms. Its just difficult to prove 100%.
This is the problem imo... you people want PROOF as if you can PROVE something.....
NOTHING can be PROVEN in science. Our very existence is JUST a THEORY......
sorry4caps...
edit: lol I'm sure i should have chosen a more accessible example at the redundancy and futility of trying to prove -anything- but i'm not gonna edit it because i just wanted to add this:
WTF is it with people coming into threads on debates and such topics calling people pseudo intellectuals and then adding/contributing nothing to the thread? It might just be me in all my brilliant glory (joking plz no castrate kthnxlol) but the term Pseudo-Intellectual to me is an oxymoron and really has no purpose. It's like in calling someone a Pseudo-Intellectual you attempt to achieve some sort of disregard or discredit and it really just doesn't work well with the word "Intelligent" I don't know, am I the only one this bothers?
Wow, some of the atheists in here are really tolerant of other beliefs (lol). Very nice guys, you want people to believe in your beliefs and accept them yet you have people like
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.
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.
You actually despise a whole country of people because you assume 1) That all of their beliefs do not correlate with you (you are unique in your beliefs among one of the largest nations in the world yeah ok) and 2) because they don't wholeheartedly believe in your beliefs because you want them to. That logic/attitude is a bit reminiscent of the dictators that lead some of the largest massacres in history.
By posting what you just said you just put yourself on the level of the religious zealots that you despise so much. Nice.
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote: So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Woah, hold on a sec. No one here is claiming the theory of evolution is infallible. If you want to provide some evidence that evolution doesn't happen then go ahead. How us the mechanism of muscles related to evolution? That's a genuine question and not rhetoric.
The fact that we can't come up with an explanation for multicellular organisms doesn't disprove evolution, it just shows that there is a gap in our knowledge. It doesn't mean that all the other pieces of evidence pointing towards evolution can be discounted. What is your alternate theory if you don't believe in evolution?
EXACTLY. It's not that we find the current theory of evolutionary biology infalliable or even any percentile complete, this is all irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that evolution is the -only- current SCIENTIFIC THEORY that has a chance of explaining our origins in such a manner.
I do not feel like making -another- post on the difference of a regular theory and a scientific theory. What is even more amazing to me is that there is never no shortage of people to come out and say LOL look at those people actually believing that theory, yet those same people take gravity for granite, when we know more about what evolution has to do with life than gravity has to do with anything.
We can observe gravity in action. It's quite difficult to accurately 'observe' evolution due to the large time spans. Fruit flies, are generally used, but even then it's not accurate because to explain our existence, we have to apply roughly the same environmental / climate, and geneology tree knowledge. It took 4 billion years to get to this point; with hiccups along the way (That is to say, the point where any being has the intellectual capacity to actually 'reason' and question their existence)
We know more about gravity, or I shall say, our knowledge is more complete of the subject, than that of evolution. Poor analogy.
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote: So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Woah, hold on a sec. No one here is claiming the theory of evolution is infallible. If you want to provide some evidence that evolution doesn't happen then go ahead. How us the mechanism of muscles related to evolution? That's a genuine question and not rhetoric.
The fact that we can't come up with an explanation for multicellular organisms doesn't disprove evolution, it just shows that there is a gap in our knowledge. It doesn't mean that all the other pieces of evidence pointing towards evolution can be discounted. What is your alternate theory if you don't believe in evolution?
I agree with your post in general but we HAVE come up with explanations for multicellular organisms. Its just difficult to prove 100%.
This is the problem imo... you people want PROOF as if you can PROVE something.....
NOTHING can be PROVEN in science. Our very existence is JUST a THEORY......
sorry4caps...
edit: lol I'm sure i should have chosen a more accessible example at the redundancy and futility of trying to prove -anything- but i'm not gonna edit it because i just wanted to add this:
WTF is it with people coming into threads on debates and such topics calling people pseudo intellectuals and then adding/contributing nothing to the thread? It might just be me in all my brilliant glory (joking plz no castrate kthnxlol) but the term Pseudo-Intellectual to me is an oxymoron and really has no purpose. It's like in calling someone a Pseudo-Intellectual you attempt to achieve some sort of disregard or discredit and it really just doesn't work well with the word "Intelligent" I don't know, am I the only one this bothers?
'Nothing can be proven in science'? Are you kidding me?
In order to delve into why you believe this, I must ask, what is your definition of science?
Secondly, the first sentence you extol is the very thing religious people say. I don't want to ever hear you critique the other aisle.
On May 21 2009 11:08 Pioneer wrote: Wow, some of the atheists in here are really tolerant of other beliefs (lol). Very nice guys, you want people to believe in your beliefs and accept them yet you have people like
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.
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.
You actually despise a whole country of people because you assume 1) That all of their beliefs do not correlate with you (you are unique in your beliefs among one of the largest nations in the world yeah ok) and 2) because they don't wholeheartedly believe in your beliefs because you want them to. That logic/attitude is a bit reminiscent of the dictators that lead some of the largest massacres in history.
By posting what you just said you just put yourself on the level of the religious zealots that you despise so much. Nice.
LOL well first off, This was being very sarcastic. I don't genuinely "despise" anyone. The act of despising is a very powerful act, and my emotions are nowhere near so volatile...
I suppose I could have worded every single fragment and phrase perfectly to avoid having to make this reply and ect but I really didn't think there was any confusion... I also did not mean my ENTIRE country sir.
Furthermore, You are assuming that because I "despise" many of the people living in my country for their beliefs that I would wholeheartedly want them to assume my beliefs. As such You further assume that my beliefs are mine because they are "unique" among my country. This is not true, my beliefs have been formed by communicating with numerous people from all over the world, including my own. One of the great things about my beliefs is that they are not unique, that they are shared. Shared with people of whom I look up to and find to be among the most brilliant minds in this world... Seriously, either that's the first post you've read by me or....
By posting what you said you just put yourself on the level of the people I "despise" for their ignorant, bias, jump-to-conclusions, can't read between the lines, lack of logic and a disregard for the sanctity of truth.
I'm sorry, all men are not created equal. All men know this on some level. People are stupid. People are Smart. When a situation allows me to make a choice, I'm sorry but I'm bias towards the intelligent.
On May 21 2009 11:08 Pioneer wrote: Wow, some of the atheists in here are really tolerant of other beliefs (lol). Very nice guys, you want people to believe in your beliefs and accept them yet you have people like
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.
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.
You actually despise a whole country of people because you assume 1) That all of their beliefs do not correlate with you (you are unique in your beliefs among one of the largest nations in the world yeah ok) and 2) because they don't wholeheartedly believe in your beliefs because you want them to. That logic/attitude is a bit reminiscent of the dictators that lead some of the largest massacres in history.
By posting what you just said you just put yourself on the level of the religious zealots that you despise so much. Nice.
I point this out time and time again. They don't listen.
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote: So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Woah, hold on a sec. No one here is claiming the theory of evolution is infallible. If you want to provide some evidence that evolution doesn't happen then go ahead. How us the mechanism of muscles related to evolution? That's a genuine question and not rhetoric.
The fact that we can't come up with an explanation for multicellular organisms doesn't disprove evolution, it just shows that there is a gap in our knowledge. It doesn't mean that all the other pieces of evidence pointing towards evolution can be discounted. What is your alternate theory if you don't believe in evolution?
EXACTLY. It's not that we find the current theory of evolutionary biology infalliable or even any percentile complete, this is all irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that evolution is the -only- current SCIENTIFIC THEORY that has a chance of explaining our origins in such a manner.
I do not feel like making -another- post on the difference of a regular theory and a scientific theory. What is even more amazing to me is that there is never no shortage of people to come out and say LOL look at those people actually believing that theory, yet those same people take gravity for granite, when we know more about what evolution has to do with life than gravity has to do with anything.
We can observe gravity in action. It's quite difficult to accurately 'observe' evolution due to the large time spans. Fruit flies, are generally used, but even then it's not accurate because to explain our existence, we have to apply roughly the same environmental / climate, and geneology tree knowledge. It took 4 billion years to get to this point; with hiccups along the way (That is to say, the point where any being has the intellectual capacity to actually 'reason' and question their existence)
We know more about gravity, or I shall say, our knowledge is more complete of the subject, than that of evolution. Poor analogy.
LOL and you said you knew something about String theory in a previous post. I'm not going to get into our theory of gravity but lets just put it this way. Newton was Wrong, Einstein's theory "proved" this. We now know that Einstien's theory is incomplete, we also know that quantum mechanics is incomplete... You know where the underlying problem is? GRAVITY... We don't know shit about gravity compared to what we know about information theory systems working with cumulative change over millinea..... come on?
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote: So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Woah, hold on a sec. No one here is claiming the theory of evolution is infallible. If you want to provide some evidence that evolution doesn't happen then go ahead. How us the mechanism of muscles related to evolution? That's a genuine question and not rhetoric.
The fact that we can't come up with an explanation for multicellular organisms doesn't disprove evolution, it just shows that there is a gap in our knowledge. It doesn't mean that all the other pieces of evidence pointing towards evolution can be discounted. What is your alternate theory if you don't believe in evolution?
EXACTLY. It's not that we find the current theory of evolutionary biology infalliable or even any percentile complete, this is all irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that evolution is the -only- current SCIENTIFIC THEORY that has a chance of explaining our origins in such a manner.
I do not feel like making -another- post on the difference of a regular theory and a scientific theory. What is even more amazing to me is that there is never no shortage of people to come out and say LOL look at those people actually believing that theory, yet those same people take gravity for granite, when we know more about what evolution has to do with life than gravity has to do with anything.
We can observe gravity in action. It's quite difficult to accurately 'observe' evolution due to the large time spans. Fruit flies, are generally used, but even then it's not accurate because to explain our existence, we have to apply roughly the same environmental / climate, and geneology tree knowledge. It took 4 billion years to get to this point; with hiccups along the way (That is to say, the point where any being has the intellectual capacity to actually 'reason' and question their existence)
We know more about gravity, or I shall say, our knowledge is more complete of the subject, than that of evolution. Poor analogy.
But we can only speculate as to the mechanism of gravity. We have observed evolution and even speciation in the lab. We can infer from fossil records that evolution has taken place, along with other pointers. We understand the mechanism of evolution in great detail.
All we know about gravity is what we've observed, we don't actually understand how it works. We know exactly how evolution works and we have observed it, though not in its entirety.
On May 21 2009 11:08 Pioneer wrote: Wow, some of the atheists in here are really tolerant of other beliefs (lol). Very nice guys, you want people to believe in your beliefs and accept them yet you have people like
On May 21 2009 05:59 Motiva 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.
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.
You actually despise a whole country of people because you assume 1) That all of their beliefs do not correlate with you (you are unique in your beliefs among one of the largest nations in the world yeah ok) and 2) because they don't wholeheartedly believe in your beliefs because you want them to. That logic/attitude is a bit reminiscent of the dictators that lead some of the largest massacres in history.
By posting what you just said you just put yourself on the level of the religious zealots that you despise so much. Nice.
LOL well first off, This was being very sarcastic. I don't genuinely "despise" anyone. The act of despising is a very powerful act, and my emotions are nowhere near so volatile...
I suppose I could have worded every single fragment and phrase perfectly to avoid having to make this reply and ect but I really didn't think there was any confusion... I also did not mean my ENTIRE country sir.
Furthermore, You are assuming that because I "despise" many of the people living in my country for their beliefs that I would wholeheartedly want them to assume my beliefs. As such You further assume that my beliefs are mine because they are "unique" among my country. This is not true, my beliefs have been formed by communicating with numerous people from all over the world, including my own. One of the great things about my beliefs is that they are not unique, that they are shared. Shared with people of whom I look up to and find to be among the most brilliant minds in this world... Seriously, either that's the first post you've read by me or....
By posting what you said you just put yourself on the level of the people I "despise" for their ignorant, bias, jump-to-conclusions, can't read between the lines, lack of logic and a disregard for the sanctity of truth.
I'm sorry, all men are not created equal. All men know this on some level. People are stupid. People are Smart. When a situation allows me to make a choice, I'm sorry but I'm bias towards the intelligent.
I might point out, that many atheists replace god with scientists. I put my faith, not in scientists, nor in god, rather the principles of science itself, not the people at the helm. Far too often that type of regard, as evident by human history, leads to massive, massive problems. (See the malevolent leading the sheeple in regard to 'Global Warming' and all the havoc politicians and scientists intermingling are creating by creating a false sense of alarm, and inaccurate science (Why would you ever plant 90% of the temperature monitors next to asphalt and pavement and expect to get an accurate reading...hello! (or not recognizing a whole piece of ice the size of california because you didn't know of a malfunctioning unit for..oh...years)). They knew this, more and more science and politics is intermingling to deceive populations...it's getting pretty scary.
Don't put anyone on any sort of pedestal. Admire the science, not the scientists as if they are some greater being divine with wisdom. I too suffer from this a bit with regards to my founders, however, at least I admit it, but I put my political views more inline with philosophy and human nature / history.
On May 21 2009 11:08 Pioneer wrote: Wow, some of the atheists in here are really tolerant of other beliefs (lol). Very nice guys, you want people to believe in your beliefs and accept them yet you have people like
On May 21 2009 05:59 Motiva 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.
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.
You actually despise a whole country of people because you assume 1) That all of their beliefs do not correlate with you (you are unique in your beliefs among one of the largest nations in the world yeah ok) and 2) because they don't wholeheartedly believe in your beliefs because you want them to. That logic/attitude is a bit reminiscent of the dictators that lead some of the largest massacres in history.
By posting what you just said you just put yourself on the level of the religious zealots that you despise so much. Nice.
LOL well first off, This was being very sarcastic. I don't genuinely "despise" anyone. The act of despising is a very powerful act, and my emotions are nowhere near so volatile...
I suppose I could have worded every single fragment and phrase perfectly to avoid having to make this reply and ect but I really didn't think there was any confusion... I also did not mean my ENTIRE country sir.
Furthermore, You are assuming that because I "despise" many of the people living in my country for their beliefs that I would wholeheartedly want them to assume my beliefs. As such You further assume that my beliefs are mine because they are "unique" among my country. This is not true, my beliefs have been formed by communicating with numerous people from all over the world, including my own. One of the great things about my beliefs is that they are not unique, that they are shared. Shared with people of whom I look up to and find to be among the most brilliant minds in this world... Seriously, either that's the first post you've read by me or....
By posting what you said you just put yourself on the level of the people I "despise" for their ignorant, bias, jump-to-conclusions, can't read between the lines, lack of logic and a disregard for the sanctity of truth.
I'm sorry, all men are not created equal. All men know this on some level. People are stupid. People are Smart. When a situation allows me to make a choice, I'm sorry but I'm bias towards the intelligent.
Damn, I thought I had worded it well enough so that even an idiot could get the sarcastic remarks.
1) That all of their beliefs do not correlate with you (you are unique in your beliefs among one of the largest nations in the world yeah ok)
Sarcasm. You decided to word your post like that so I decided to take every thing you said literally. And if someone took what you wrote literally than that's how you came across.
and sigh...... about why we can't prove anything, are you serious? Perhaps you should add a book on the philosophy of science to your Kaku collection... LOL
In order to delve into why you believe this, I must ask, what is your definition of science?
Secondly, the first sentence you extol is the very thing religious people say. I don't want to ever hear you critique the other aisle.
My definition of science is pretty much the Scientific Method, I'm sure I could expand it a bit further to include some logical element if it came to that.
Science doesn't prove anything because all it can do is provide theories. This is because the only thing we can do is collectively attempt to percieve the truth. Regardless of what we know, think we know, or can "prove" the truth is still out there with or without us unchanging. It's hard to just type a few paragraphs to sum this up without really getting into all the philosophy nonsense.... but hmmm
If we can only attempt to percieve "truth" then we can't be sure anything we know is true because we only have our perceptions. What we call the truth might not be the truth, but just the perception of the majority. This is why we can't prove anything. If you can't overcome your experience and perception then the truth is a mystery..... sigh this is so Off Topic and theres no reason for me to conitnue if you haven't followed me up to this point, and if you have then you understand.
On May 21 2009 11:08 Pioneer wrote: Wow, some of the atheists in here are really tolerant of other beliefs (lol). Very nice guys, you want people to believe in your beliefs and accept them yet you have people like
On May 21 2009 05:59 Motiva 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.
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.
You actually despise a whole country of people because you assume 1) That all of their beliefs do not correlate with you (you are unique in your beliefs among one of the largest nations in the world yeah ok) and 2) because they don't wholeheartedly believe in your beliefs because you want them to. That logic/attitude is a bit reminiscent of the dictators that lead some of the largest massacres in history.
By posting what you just said you just put yourself on the level of the religious zealots that you despise so much. Nice.
LOL well first off, This was being very sarcastic. I don't genuinely "despise" anyone. The act of despising is a very powerful act, and my emotions are nowhere near so volatile...
I suppose I could have worded every single fragment and phrase perfectly to avoid having to make this reply and ect but I really didn't think there was any confusion... I also did not mean my ENTIRE country sir.
Furthermore, You are assuming that because I "despise" many of the people living in my country for their beliefs that I would wholeheartedly want them to assume my beliefs. As such You further assume that my beliefs are mine because they are "unique" among my country. This is not true, my beliefs have been formed by communicating with numerous people from all over the world, including my own. One of the great things about my beliefs is that they are not unique, that they are shared. Shared with people of whom I look up to and find to be among the most brilliant minds in this world... Seriously, either that's the first post you've read by me or....
By posting what you said you just put yourself on the level of the people I "despise" for their ignorant, bias, jump-to-conclusions, can't read between the lines, lack of logic and a disregard for the sanctity of truth.
I'm sorry, all men are not created equal. All men know this on some level. People are stupid. People are Smart. When a situation allows me to make a choice, I'm sorry but I'm bias towards the intelligent.
Damn, I thought I had worded it well enough so that even an idiot could get the sarcastic remarks.
1) That all of their beliefs do not correlate with you (you are unique in your beliefs among one of the largest nations in the world yeah ok)
Sarcasm. You decided to word your post like that so I decided to take every thing you said literally. And if someone took what you wrote literally than that's how you came across.
People are stupid. People are Smart. eh?
Do you fall under the former?
What's your point? Why are you trolling me? I explained that my post could have been worded better and that I don't really DESPISE anyone. Disagree with? Yes? What do you want troll? Stop clogging a fine thread.
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote: So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Woah, hold on a sec. No one here is claiming the theory of evolution is infallible. If you want to provide some evidence that evolution doesn't happen then go ahead. How us the mechanism of muscles related to evolution? That's a genuine question and not rhetoric.
The fact that we can't come up with an explanation for multicellular organisms doesn't disprove evolution, it just shows that there is a gap in our knowledge. It doesn't mean that all the other pieces of evidence pointing towards evolution can be discounted. What is your alternate theory if you don't believe in evolution?
EXACTLY. It's not that we find the current theory of evolutionary biology infalliable or even any percentile complete, this is all irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that evolution is the -only- current SCIENTIFIC THEORY that has a chance of explaining our origins in such a manner.
I do not feel like making -another- post on the difference of a regular theory and a scientific theory. What is even more amazing to me is that there is never no shortage of people to come out and say LOL look at those people actually believing that theory, yet those same people take gravity for granite, when we know more about what evolution has to do with life than gravity has to do with anything.
We can observe gravity in action. It's quite difficult to accurately 'observe' evolution due to the large time spans. Fruit flies, are generally used, but even then it's not accurate because to explain our existence, we have to apply roughly the same environmental / climate, and geneology tree knowledge. It took 4 billion years to get to this point; with hiccups along the way (That is to say, the point where any being has the intellectual capacity to actually 'reason' and question their existence)
We know more about gravity, or I shall say, our knowledge is more complete of the subject, than that of evolution. Poor analogy.
LOL and you said you knew something about String theory in a previous post. I'm not going to get into our theory of gravity but lets just put it this way. Newton was Wrong, Einstein's theory "proved" this. We now know that Einstien's theory is incomplete, we also know that quantum mechanics is incomplete... You know where the underlying problem is? GRAVITY... We don't know shit about gravity compared to what we know about information theory systems working with cumulative change over millinea..... come on?
You missed the whole point. We know the mechanic of gravity exists for a fact. We can test it, measure it, and observe it. We may not understand 'how' it works, but we know it in fact exists.
Evolution on the other hand, has never been observed on a scale of such to see how different species in the same tree can turn out so different visually, and biologically. That is because of the long time span, we can only 'infer' or guess based on a hypothesis. Until we actually observe the evolutionary leaps and jumps, we can't conclusively say anything on the macro scale of evolution. We understand the micro scale of evolution pretty well, and we can extrapolate that to macro scale, but it doesn't give us as clear a picture. We have evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds (avian), but if dinosaurs presumably (as much as we know) were wiped out relatively quickly, how come there is no fossil records of bird like species at the time of dinosaurs? Archeoptrix (sp?), is the closest link if I remember correctly, and that is very inconclusive to make such a giant leap.
So, yes, our understanding of the mechanics of gravity are vastly superior to that of evolution.
On May 21 2009 11:08 Pioneer wrote: Wow, some of the atheists in here are really tolerant of other beliefs (lol). Very nice guys, you want people to believe in your beliefs and accept them yet you have people like
On May 21 2009 05:59 Motiva 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.
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.
You actually despise a whole country of people because you assume 1) That all of their beliefs do not correlate with you (you are unique in your beliefs among one of the largest nations in the world yeah ok) and 2) because they don't wholeheartedly believe in your beliefs because you want them to. That logic/attitude is a bit reminiscent of the dictators that lead some of the largest massacres in history.
By posting what you just said you just put yourself on the level of the religious zealots that you despise so much. Nice.
LOL well first off, This was being very sarcastic. I don't genuinely "despise" anyone. The act of despising is a very powerful act, and my emotions are nowhere near so volatile...
I suppose I could have worded every single fragment and phrase perfectly to avoid having to make this reply and ect but I really didn't think there was any confusion... I also did not mean my ENTIRE country sir.
Furthermore, You are assuming that because I "despise" many of the people living in my country for their beliefs that I would wholeheartedly want them to assume my beliefs. As such You further assume that my beliefs are mine because they are "unique" among my country. This is not true, my beliefs have been formed by communicating with numerous people from all over the world, including my own. One of the great things about my beliefs is that they are not unique, that they are shared. Shared with people of whom I look up to and find to be among the most brilliant minds in this world... Seriously, either that's the first post you've read by me or....
By posting what you said you just put yourself on the level of the people I "despise" for their ignorant, bias, jump-to-conclusions, can't read between the lines, lack of logic and a disregard for the sanctity of truth.
I'm sorry, all men are not created equal. All men know this on some level. People are stupid. People are Smart. When a situation allows me to make a choice, I'm sorry but I'm bias towards the intelligent.
I might point out, that many atheists replace god with scientists. I put my faith, not in scientists, nor in god, rather the principles of science itself, not the people at the helm. Far too often that type of regard, as evident by human history, leads to massive, massive problems. (See the malevolent leading the sheeple in regard to 'Global Warming' and all the havoc politicians and scientists intermingling are creating by creating a false sense of alarm, and inaccurate science (Why would you ever plant 90% of the temperature monitors next to asphalt and pavement and expect to get an accurate reading...hello! (or not recognizing a whole piece of ice the size of california because you didn't know of a malfunctioning unit for..oh...years)). They knew this, more and more science and politics is intermingling to deceive populations...it's getting pretty scary.
Don't put anyone on any sort of pedestal. Admire the science, not the scientists as if they are some greater being divine with wisdom. I too suffer from this a bit with regards to my founders, however, at least I admit it, but I put my political views more inline with philosophy and human nature / history.
I agree largely with your point in this post. Though I really don't want to get into Global Warming, so I have no comment. There are great problems with the media and the politics that interfere with truth scientific success. I don't get any of my information from the conventional American Media (TV, Newspapers, Radio) and I would suggest anyone interested in the truth really put in the effort and look deeper. The only good source of information for Science is from multiple sources of eclectic scientists in my opinion. (Read: Independant scientists coming to the same conclusions and then those conclusions being peer reviewed and holding strong for decades)
^ 'Science' as you use it depends upon the assumption that the human intellect is capable of producing thoughts and conclusions that are accurate to some degree. When there is a loss of precision in our data, we question our theories, no? However, have you considered the possibility that the first assumption may be incorrect?
And no, I'm not trying to instigate you. I'd just like to suggest that there is an assumption being made that is vital in order for science's tenets to work, and it may or may not be true. After all, how can a relevant experiment be conducted to verify it?
I'd like to remind people that micro evolution HAS been proven and recreated in labortory coniditions. AND repeated by independent researchers.
They witnessed bacteria that, when deprived of other food sources in a closed environment(obviously), managed to evolve the ability to break down and consume nylon as a food source.
Evolution is essentially fact at this point amongst the scientific community. Only (select)members of the general public are ignorant enough to dismiss it completely. Typically the religious right.
I love how people come on here and say "LOL LOOK AT THE PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS" Oh really because people can't discuss things. People have different background in different groups of knowledge, you have no idea of the mind that is behind the posts here. I for one am a Biological Anthropology graduate student, and although paleo/evolution is not what im specializing in, I still have to know the subjects very well.
On May 21 2009 11:48 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: I'd like to remind people that micro evolution HAS been proven and recreated in labortory coniditions. AND repeated by independent researchers.
They witnessed bacteria that, when deprived of other food sources in a closed environment(obviously), managed to evolve the ability to break down and consume nylon as a food source.
Evolution is essentially fact at this point amongst the scientific community. Only (select)members of the general public are ignorant enough to dismiss it completely. Typically the religious right.
Evolution doesn't work like that. The species can't specify the mutation they need. If that was the case then there is no chance in the world. Everything is pre-ordained, pre-planned, running its course. That is why there is extinction. Generally, at the time the mutation has to exist somewhere within the population in order for the species to survive. If you rely on the assumption that species when confronted magically start creating mutations to survive, well...thats false. (If you deprive such a small population of food, and expect it to live, thats not how evolution works; this was my point, and good luck creating that scenario to play out over and over)
The greatest data we have on micro evolution is in regards to fruit flies. Their lifespan is extremely short, and we can observe on a faster scale the effects. However, even at this point, we have not seen fruit flies evolve into some other 'species' even though we are literally flying through generations. You know why that is? Because environment is the greatest function to facilitate the need and function of mutations / evolution.
How do humans have such a large geneology tree, yet at the time Africa was open plains, much as it is today (This is the reason for bipedalism given by scientists), which doesn't isolate anything at all. If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today. That is what they setting out to try and make sense of. Our knowledge of macro evolution is severely lacking.
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote: So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Woah, hold on a sec. No one here is claiming the theory of evolution is infallible. If you want to provide some evidence that evolution doesn't happen then go ahead. How us the mechanism of muscles related to evolution? That's a genuine question and not rhetoric.
The fact that we can't come up with an explanation for multicellular organisms doesn't disprove evolution, it just shows that there is a gap in our knowledge. It doesn't mean that all the other pieces of evidence pointing towards evolution can be discounted. What is your alternate theory if you don't believe in evolution?
EXACTLY. It's not that we find the current theory of evolutionary biology infalliable or even any percentile complete, this is all irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that evolution is the -only- current SCIENTIFIC THEORY that has a chance of explaining our origins in such a manner.
I do not feel like making -another- post on the difference of a regular theory and a scientific theory. What is even more amazing to me is that there is never no shortage of people to come out and say LOL look at those people actually believing that theory, yet those same people take gravity for granite, when we know more about what evolution has to do with life than gravity has to do with anything.
We can observe gravity in action. It's quite difficult to accurately 'observe' evolution due to the large time spans. Fruit flies, are generally used, but even then it's not accurate because to explain our existence, we have to apply roughly the same environmental / climate, and geneology tree knowledge. It took 4 billion years to get to this point; with hiccups along the way (That is to say, the point where any being has the intellectual capacity to actually 'reason' and question their existence)
We know more about gravity, or I shall say, our knowledge is more complete of the subject, than that of evolution. Poor analogy.
LOL and you said you knew something about String theory in a previous post. I'm not going to get into our theory of gravity but lets just put it this way. Newton was Wrong, Einstein's theory "proved" this. We now know that Einstien's theory is incomplete, we also know that quantum mechanics is incomplete... You know where the underlying problem is? GRAVITY... We don't know shit about gravity compared to what we know about information theory systems working with cumulative change over millinea..... come on?
You missed the whole point. We know the mechanic of gravity exists for a fact. We can test it, measure it, and observe it. We may not understand 'how' it works, but we know it in fact exists.
Evolution on the other hand, has never been observed on a scale of such to see how different species in the same tree can turn out so different visually, and biologically. That is because of the long time span, we can only 'infer' or guess based on a hypothesis. Until we actually observe the evolutionary leaps and jumps, we can't conclusively say anything on the macro scale of evolution. We understand the micro scale of evolution pretty well, and we can extrapolate that to macro scale, but it doesn't give us as clear a picture. We have evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds (avian), but if dinosaurs presumably (as much as we know) were wiped out relatively quickly, how come there is no fossil records of bird like species at the time of dinosaurs? Archeoptrix (sp?), is the closest link if I remember correctly, and that is very inconclusive to make such a giant leap.
So, yes, our understanding of the mechanics of gravity are vastly superior to that of evolution.
WOW. I Should just not respond for the sanctity of Teamliquid's forums. You've posted post after post of so called science with misrepresented information and I have no real reason to continue this.
But I'm just going to say no. This isn't a question of the ability to provide evidence of existence of the two theories. It's a question on which one do we have more evidence for the validity for our current theories of. ect This is a waste of time. If you really want to continue this debate PM me and we can do it via e-mail and provide documentation and cite evidence for our every statement, but for TL's sake we should stop this here.
On May 21 2009 11:48 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: I'd like to remind people that micro evolution HAS been proven and recreated in labortory coniditions. AND repeated by independent researchers.
They witnessed bacteria that, when deprived of other food sources in a closed environment(obviously), managed to evolve the ability to break down and consume nylon as a food source.
Evolution is essentially fact at this point amongst the scientific community. Only (select)members of the general public are ignorant enough to dismiss it completely. Typically the religious right.
Evolution doesn't work like that. The species can't specify the mutation they need. If that was the case then there is no chance in the world. Everything is pre-ordained, pre-planned, running its course. That is why there is extinction. Generally, at the time the mutation has to exist somewhere within the population in order for the species to survive. If you rely on the assumption that species when confronted magically start creating mutations to survive, well...thats false. (If you deprive such a small population of food, and expect it to live, thats not how evolution works; this was my point, and good luck creating that scenario to play out over and over)
The greatest data we have on micro evolution is in regards to fruit flies. Their lifespan is extremely short, and we can observe on a faster scale the effects. However, even at this point, we have not seen fruit flies evolve into some other 'species' even though we are literally flying through generations. You know why that is? Because environment is the greatest function to facilitate the need and function of mutations / evolution.
How do humans have such a large geneology tree, yet at the time Africa was open plains, much as it is today (This is the reason for bipedalism given by scientists), which doesn't isolate anything at all. If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today. That is what they setting out to try and make sense of. Our knowledge of macro evolution is severely lacking.
Honestly nothing you wrote related to my post=/ I was only talking about micro evolution and never mentioned anything about species being able to select their mutation or even hinted at it.
I merely described the results of an experiment. Also, bacteria reproduces much much faster than fruit flys.
On May 21 2009 11:48 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: I'd like to remind people that micro evolution HAS been proven and recreated in labortory coniditions. AND repeated by independent researchers.
They witnessed bacteria that, when deprived of other food sources in a closed environment(obviously), managed to evolve the ability to break down and consume nylon as a food source.
Evolution is essentially fact at this point amongst the scientific community. Only (select)members of the general public are ignorant enough to dismiss it completely. Typically the religious right.
Evolution doesn't work like that. The species can't specify the mutation they need. If that was the case then there is no chance in the world. Everything is pre-ordained, pre-planned, running its course. That is why there is extinction. Generally, at the time the mutation has to exist somewhere within the population in order for the species to survive. If you rely on the assumption that species when confronted magically start creating mutations to survive, well...thats false. (If you deprive such a small population of food, and expect it to live, thats not how evolution works; this was my point, and good luck creating that scenario to play out over and over)
The greatest data we have on micro evolution is in regards to fruit flies. Their lifespan is extremely short, and we can observe on a faster scale the effects. However, even at this point, we have not seen fruit flies evolve into some other 'species' even though we are literally flying through generations. You know why that is? Because environment is the greatest function to facilitate the need and function of mutations / evolution.
How do humans have such a large geneology tree, yet at the time Africa was open plains, much as it is today (This is the reason for bipedalism given by scientists), which doesn't isolate anything at all. If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today. That is what they setting out to try and make sense of. Our knowledge of macro evolution is severely lacking.
What the shit are you talking about. I understood the odd sentence but overall, wtf.
On May 21 2009 11:46 Descent wrote: ^ 'Science' as you use it depends upon the assumption that the human intellect is capable of producing thoughts and conclusions that are accurate to some degree. When there is a loss of precision in our data, we question our theories, no? However, have you considered the possibility that the first assumption may be incorrect?
And no, I'm not trying to instigate you. I'd just like to suggest that there is an assumption being made that is vital in order for science's tenets to work, and it may or may not be true. After all, how can a relevant experiment be conducted to verify it?
Edit: Meant for the post above Motiva's.
Edit 2: Typo.
I agree completely, and this is also another basis for the statement I was trying to back up that: Nothing can be "Proven" Not even by science. All we have is theories. My initial point was simply that theres a big diference between just any theory in the traditional use of the world and a scientific theory that has been tested and tried ectectect
I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote: I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Are you trolling? Have you read the thread? Did you read my reply?
On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote: I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Why repost this? We read it the first time and it provided nothing the first time around? Why continue?
We know exactly how one cell has propagated into multicellular organisms that isn't the "problem" with evolution. The "problem" is finding out the first intial replicator. And WTF is a Pseudo-Intellectual? Get that oxymoron troll nonsense out of here or contribute something. Sigh.. This thread is no longer worthy of TL someone close it. lol.
On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote: If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today.
Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static.
On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote: I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
I see.
I find it funny how completely clueless you are.
Modern science completely understands the mechanisms of muscles. What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck even wikipedia(which is extremely basic) completely explains how the work. Have you ever taken an organic biology or chemestry class? Every looked in a biology text book?
On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote: If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today.
Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static.
Exactly. There are many examples of non beneficial mutations that have been documented in fruit flys. Such as additional legs, extra sets of wings, etc. Not enough to constitute a new species but still. Evolution is a random process, whether the mutations are BENEFICIAL is relative to ones environment. The mutations occur regardless.
On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote: I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
I see.
I find it funny how completely clueless you are.
Modern science completely understands the mechanisms of muscles. What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck even wikipedia(which is extremely basic) completely explains how the work. Have you ever taken an organic biology or chemestry class? Every looked in a biology text book?
To be honest, that is rudimentary at best. Since I've started to get back into BB, the wealth of information, studies, is astonishing. I've had to go back and dig through other scientific sources to make sense of the terminology. Even then, its small sample sizes (relatively) and extrapolations made from those observed by the actual intake of the substances, however since the body is so complex it's hard to isolate that one item and be conclusive that, that is what is causing X to happen.
This is all related to fitness, bodybuilding, muscle formation, cellular transportation, etc. Hell, just reading about the optimal sodium levels, is a course worthy of a 400-500 college level class lol.
On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote: If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today.
Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static.
Exactly! Hmmm Aegraen you seem to try really hard, but either you misunderstand or just haven't had the privy of such education. Open your mind and accept that Evolution is just such a massive topic with millions of species, and a practically infinite number of -possible- genes (please god let this not get into an argument on infinities and ect sigh I just mean a huge number PLEASE)
EVOLUTION IS PROBABILISTIC
It is impossible to have a full grasp of evolutionary steps from the very first almost inorganic replicators to the stages of homo sapiens and homo evolutis.
I'm surprised you haven't brought up the arguments of irreducible complexity, any of that creatist nonsense. Sigh, sorry... I'll be back in a few hours. This is tiresome
Are all these people trolls or middle school dropouts?
How the hell can you say "I <3 debates", claim to repost something, pointing out how it is funny and then just calling everyone pesudo-intellectual for valueing the theory of evolution.
We do understand the mechanisms underlying gravity? But not those of muscles?
Someone says something that's obviously wrong while it is a middle school biology subject. And when corrected by a third person, after being lauched at, claims to be just testing you and claims you failed their smart little test. He understood it all along but you obviously didn't. This even after this made-up excuse was exactly predicted as a satire attempt.
On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote: I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
I see.
I find it funny how completely clueless you are.
Modern science completely understands the mechanisms of muscles. What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck even wikipedia(which is extremely basic) completely explains how the work. Have you ever taken an organic biology or chemestry class? Every looked in a biology text book?
To be honest, that is rudimentary at best. Since I've started to get back into BB, the wealth of information, studies, is astonishing. I've had to go back and dig through other scientific sources to make sense of the terminology. Even then, its small sample sizes (relatively) and extrapolations made from those observed by the actual intake of the substances, however since the body is so complex it's hard to isolate that one item and be conclusive that, that is what is causing X to happen.
This is all related to fitness, bodybuilding, muscle formation, cellular transportation, etc. Hell, just reading about the optimal sodium levels, is a course worthy of a 400-500 college level class lol.
You're confusing scientifically known things with personal knowledge. No one person can know everything about any subject. You're missing the point.
The way his fingers are shaped, it looks like the thing was playing Starcraft on the computer when it died. I guess we're not that different after all.
Digital reconstructions of Ida's teeth reveal that she has unerupted molars in her jaw, indicating that she was about 8 months old, or the equivalent of a 9 year old human. The shape of Ida's teeth provides clues as to her diet; jagged molars would have allowed her to slice food, suggesting that she was a leaf and seed eater. This is confirmed by the remarkable preservation of her gut content. Furthermore the lack of a baculum (penis bone) means that the fossil was most likely female.
On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote: If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today.
Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static.
Exactly! Hmmm Aegraen you seem to try really hard, but either you misunderstand or just haven't had the privy of such education. Open your mind and accept that Evolution is just such a massive topic with millions of species, and a practically infinite number of -possible- genes (please god let this not get into an argument on infinities and ect sigh I just mean a huge number PLEASE)
EVOLUTION IS PROBABILISTIC
It is impossible to have a full grasp of evolutionary steps from the very first almost inorganic replicators to the stages of homo sapiens and homo evolutis.
I'm surprised you haven't brought up the arguments of irreducible complexity, any of that creatist nonsense. Sigh, sorry... I'll be back in a few hours. This is tiresome
Your judgement is clouded in the fact that your preconceived notions lead you to believe I'm a creationist, because I am not lock and step with your exact beliefs. I do believe in evolution (however surprising that is to you), however there are so many unanswered questions, I don't put my indelible 'faith' into the science. Just because so far it is the only 'scientific theoram' to be proposed, doesn't mean that it is the only possible explanation. As you said, it is such a complex system....For me, there are far too many unanswered questions in relation to our existence. You see, evolution sets out to prove how we came to be, it hasn't satisfactorily answered that question for me because macro evolution has too many unanswered questions.
We have yet to witness, the 'evolution' of inter family species to such radically different states as found throughout eco systems around the world (case in point: fruit flies). Secondly, we have hugely eclipsed any known number of other species total populations throughout....what we know of, just in the last 100 years of human beings. You would think with a sample size of 7 BILLION, that we would have some advantageous mutagenic properties show up...yet all we see are one in tens of millions abnormalities that only serve to hinder...so, in a much smaller sample size, we are to believe that we went from rudimentary biped to homo sapien in the same environment, generally with the same predatory animals...
Those are the questions left unanswered. We can point to links, but we can't answer the why or how specifically, especially when given mathematics we should see advantageous mutagenic properties.
And as you extol, evolution never stops. Why then in such an enormous sample size, have we not seen any evolution within our species.
On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote: If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today.
Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static.
Exactly! Hmmm Aegraen you seem to try really hard, but either you misunderstand or just haven't had the privy of such education. Open your mind and accept that Evolution is just such a massive topic with millions of species, and a practically infinite number of -possible- genes (please god let this not get into an argument on infinities and ect sigh I just mean a huge number PLEASE)
EVOLUTION IS PROBABILISTIC
It is impossible to have a full grasp of evolutionary steps from the very first almost inorganic replicators to the stages of homo sapiens and homo evolutis.
I'm surprised you haven't brought up the arguments of irreducible complexity, any of that creatist nonsense. Sigh, sorry... I'll be back in a few hours. This is tiresome
Your judgement is clouded in the fact that your preconceived notions lead you to believe I'm a creationist, because I am not lock and step with your exact beliefs. I do believe in evolution (however surprising that is to you), however there are so many unanswered questions, I don't put my indelible 'faith' into the science. Just because so far it is the only 'scientific theoram' to be proposed, doesn't mean that it is the only possible explanation. As you said, it is such a complex system....For me, there are far too many unanswered questions in relation to our existence. You see, evolution sets out to prove how we came to be, it hasn't satisfactorily answered that question for me because macro evolution has too many unanswered questions.
We have yet to witness, the 'evolution' of inter family species to such radically different states as found throughout eco systems around the world (case in point: fruit flies). Secondly, we have hugely eclipsed any known number of other species total populations throughout....what we know of, just in the last 100 years of human beings. You would think with a sample size of 7 BILLION, that we would have some advantageous mutagenic properties show up...yet all we see are one in tens of millions abnormalities that only serve to hinder...so, in a much smaller sample size, we are to believe that we went from rudimentary biped to homo sapien in the same environment, generally with the same predatory animals...
Those are the questions left unanswered. We can point to links, but we can't answer the why or how specifically, especially when given mathematics we should see advantageous mutagenic properties.
And as you extol, evolution never stops. Why then in such an enormous sample size, have we not seen any evolution within our species.
I'm on my way out, but I'd like to say quickly that I apologize for the creationist/irreducible complexity comment I made. It's really not my point, and is irrelevant. You have many convoluted questions and curiousities about the various posibilities in evolution, that's all good and dandy, but what do they have to do to debase the validity of the theory? Name any other theory that comes remotely close? At worst you are just arguing for the theory of evolution with more information, and some different information? What is your point? How does this do damage to the theory other than provide hope for even further understanding?
On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote: I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
I see.
I find it funny how completely clueless you are.
Modern science completely understands the mechanisms of muscles. What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck even wikipedia(which is extremely basic) completely explains how the work. Have you ever taken an organic biology or chemestry class? Every looked in a biology text book?
hehe. Wikipedia as a source. And yes i have taken many bio and chem classes. I am in school for my NP degree. Clearly i lack all basic understanding of cellular, and homeostatic function of the body.
And no. wiki is just (as per usual) grazing the surface of muscles, so the layman can understand.
This:
Microanatomy
Muscle is mainly composed of muscle cells. Within the cells are myofibrils; myofibrils contain sarcomeres, which are composed of actin and myosin. Individual muscle fibres are surrounded by endomysium. Muscle fibers are bound together by perimysium into bundles called fascicles; the bundles are then grouped together to form muscle, which is enclosed in a sheath of epimysium. Muscle spindles are distributed throughout the muscles and provide sensory feedback information to the central nervous system.
Skeletal muscle is arranged in discrete muscles, an example of which is the biceps brachii. It is connected by tendons to processes of the skeleton. Cardiac muscle is similar to skeletal muscle in both composition and action, being comprised of myofibrils of sarcomeres, but anatomically different in that the muscle fibers are typically branched like a tree and connect to other cardiac muscle fibers through intercalcated discs, and form the appearance of a syncytium.
barely begins to describe the theoretical functioning of the muscle cell.
They don't go into any depth about the following: (i will try and give you a basic understanding- assuming that you haven't taken any chem/bio courses, and rely on wiki for 'reputable' information
For the layman:
Step 1: Acetylcholine released by axon of motor neuron crosses cleft and bind to receptor/ channels on motor end plate. (A nerve makes an action potential 'you telling your muscle to move' and a neruo transmitter acetylcholine is released from the nerve. [I will withhold all of the inter-axon hormones and chemicals because i don't want to confuse you.] then- nerotransmiter crosses a gab between the nerve and the muscle.) now-
Step 2: Action potential generated in response to binding of acetylcholine and subsequent end plate potential is propagated across surface membrane and down T tubules of the muscle cell. (Basically the signal propagated by the nerve is now traveling through the upper surface of a given muscle cell and it will eventually reach a literal tube. this tube will help the action potential propagate into-)
Step 3: The sarcoplasmic reticulum. This structure (which is located within the muscle cell is the the storage space for Ca2+. [that is calcium] Now because the action potential is still propagating, it will now traverse to the lateral sacs of the sarcoplasmic reticulum. then-
Step 4: Calcium ions released from the lateral sacs bind to troponin on actin filaments; this will lead to a tropomyosin being physically moved aside to uncover cross bridge binding sited on actin. (Now i realize this is probably getting confusing so let me try and explain. Now in the muscle cell there are things called Myofibril.
These myofibril [which are really nothing more than smaller and smaller versions of the muscle cell are comprised of the following] and A band, I band, and a Z line. Along with an area of said myofibril called the sacromere. Now the A band is comprised of a very thick filament protein called Myosin. And this is the 'mechanical' action of the muscle cell, that scientists 'think' is doing the pulling.
Now along the myosin/ A band is another string of proteins called actin. Actin when the binding site is removed, is the 'latch' that the myosin can pull off of, shortening the muscle- and causing a contracting. However the actin is normally blocked by tropomyosin. Now the reason this is so is to stop tetanus of the muscle. However carrying on- this blocking of the receptor site is only moved away in the presence of another molecule called troponin. [There that should give you a very very basic understanding of the simply sliding filament theory of muscles, now where was i?
Ohh yes-
Step 5: Myosin cross bridges attach to actin and bend, pulling actin filaments toward center of sarcomere; powered by energy provided by ATP (So once again we are back to the filiments [found inside of the sarcomere.] The myosin (presented with ATP) and because the Ca2+ ions have binding with the troponin have now taken the tropomyosin covering the actin / myosin binding sites, and allowed the myosin to 'grab hold'.
Step 6: Ca2+ is actively taken up by sarcoplasmic reticulum when there is no longer local action potential. (Basically, once the action potential goes away, or is not further reinforced from the neuron- Ca2+ is taken back from the troponin and the tropomyosin slides back into place covering the actin/myosin binding sites and (providing there is no more atp) the muscle will relax.
So there my friend is the SLIDING MUSCLE FILAMENT THEORY
That is as quickly and as simply as i possibly could have written it for the pseudo intellectuals. Once again i would like to remind you that medical science has no idea how myosin coupled with ATP and the movement of entire protein molecules works at all. However i obviously have no idea what i am talking about- so once again! (Because science understands everything!)
I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote: I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
I see.
I find it funny how completely clueless you are.
Modern science completely understands the mechanisms of muscles. What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck even wikipedia(which is extremely basic) completely explains how the work. Have you ever taken an organic biology or chemestry class? Every looked in a biology text book?
hehe. Wikipedia as a source. And yes i have taken many bio and chem classes. I am in school for my NP degree. Clearly i lack all basic understanding of cellular, and homeostatic function of the body.
And no. wiki is just (as per usual) grazing the surface of muscles, so the layman can understand.
This:
Microanatomy
Muscle is mainly composed of muscle cells. Within the cells are myofibrils; myofibrils contain sarcomeres, which are composed of actin and myosin. Individual muscle fibres are surrounded by endomysium. Muscle fibers are bound together by perimysium into bundles called fascicles; the bundles are then grouped together to form muscle, which is enclosed in a sheath of epimysium. Muscle spindles are distributed throughout the muscles and provide sensory feedback information to the central nervous system.
Skeletal muscle is arranged in discrete muscles, an example of which is the biceps brachii. It is connected by tendons to processes of the skeleton. Cardiac muscle is similar to skeletal muscle in both composition and action, being comprised of myofibrils of sarcomeres, but anatomically different in that the muscle fibers are typically branched like a tree and connect to other cardiac muscle fibers through intercalcated discs, and form the appearance of a syncytium.
barely begins to describe the theoretical functioning of the muscle cell.
They don't go into any depth about the following: (i will try and give you a basic understanding- assuming that you haven't taken any chem/bio courses, and rely on wiki for 'reputable' information
For the layman:
Step 1: Acetylcholine released by axon of motor neuron crosses cleft and bind to receptor/ channels on motor end plate. (A nerve makes an action potential 'you telling your muscle to move' and a neruo transmitter acetylcholine is released from the nerve. [I will withhold all of the inter-axon hormones and chemicals because i don't want to confuse you.] then- nerotransmiter crosses a gab between the nerve and the muscle.) now-
Step 2: Action potential generated in response to binding of acetylcholine and subsequent end plate potential is propagated across surface membrane and down T tubules of the muscle cell. (Basically the signal propagated by the nerve is now traveling through the upper surface of a given muscle cell and it will eventually reach a literal tube. this tube will help the action potential propagate into-)
Step 3: The sarcoplasmic reticulum. This structure (which is located within the muscle cell is the the storage space for Ca2+. [that is calcium] Now because the action potential is still propagating, it will now traverse to the lateral sacs of the sarcoplasmic reticulum. then-
Step 4: Calcium ions released from the lateral sacs bind to troponin on actin filaments; this will lead to a tropomyosin being physically moved aside to uncover cross bridge binding sited on actin. (Now i realize this is probably getting confusing so let me try and explain. Now in the muscle cell there are things called Myofibril.
These myofibril [which are really nothing more than smaller and smaller versions of the muscle cell are comprised of the following] and A band, I band, and a Z line. Along with an area of said myofibril called the sacromere. Now the A band is comprised of a very thick filament protein called Myosin. And this is the 'mechanical' action of the muscle cell, that scientists 'think' is doing the pulling.
Now along the myosin/ A band is another string of proteins called actin. Actin when the binding site is removed, is the 'latch' that the myosin can pull off of, shortening the muscle- and causing a contracting. However the actin is normally blocked by tropomyosin. Now the reason this is so is to stop tetanus of the muscle. However carrying on- this blocking of the receptor site is only moved away in the presence of another molecule called troponin. [There that should give you a very very basic understanding of the simply sliding filament theory of muscles, now where was i?
Ohh yes-
Step 5: Myosin cross bridges attach to actin and bend, pulling actin filaments toward center of sarcomere; powered by energy provided by ATP (So once again we are back to the filiments [found inside of the sarcomere.] The myosin (presented with ATP) and because the Ca2+ ions have binding with the troponin have now taken the tropomyosin covering the actin / myosin binding sites, and allowed the myosin to 'grab hold'.
Step 6: Ca2+ is actively taken up by sarcoplasmic reticulum when there is no longer local action potential. (Basically, once the action potential goes away, or is not further reinforced from the neuron- Ca2+ is taken back from the troponin and the tropomyosin slides back into place covering the actin/myosin binding sites and (providing there is no more atp) the muscle will relax.
So there my friend is the SLIDING MUSCLE FILAMENT THEORY
That is as quickly and as simply as i possibly could have written it for the pseudo intellectuals. Once again i would like to remind you that medical science has no idea how myosin coupled with ATP and the movement of entire protein molecules works at all. However i obviously have no idea what i am talking about- so once again! (Because science understands everything!)
I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Can you answer my reply to your first post?
Edit: Also, why have you underlined the word theory? What is this supposed to prove?
On May 21 2009 12:53 Aegraen wrote: And as you extol, evolution never stops. Why then in such an enormous sample size, have we not seen any evolution within our species.
Within our species? We've seen that. The sickle cell trait is an advantageous mutation in areas in which malaria is common and it spreads within the populations in those areas.
read the article if you like. this was what happened a few million years before this fossil is thought to have lived. also read in there about the Azolla event. the theory about the warmest time in our earths history, and how we have evolved in what is known as an icehouse planet.
this has significance in light of the global warming debate. whether or not its "real" is insignificant. suppose we see the total melting of the ice cap, northern, this will signal a change is happening that is outside of the history of, apparently, our entire evolution as a species.
i wrote a short essay about the PETM, the Azolla event, and the warmer planet. if anyone wants a copy of it you can PM me.
I will agree with Aegraen that a lot of people who "believe" or "accept" in evolution have absolutely no understanding of anything beyond the basics.
Evolutiion is slightly probabilistic, e.g genetic drift, bottleneck effect, founder effect ,etc. But Natural Selection is the main component of it.
and btw, the muscle microanatomy post is cool but its not so much in layman terms lol.
All I learned in my bio class was enzymatic pathway of muscle fibers and the histology, some nervous signaling but not too in depth since it's general bio. Well I'm still in bio 2 in college so.
People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so?
You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great!
Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know everything wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
edit: I am going to start a tally about how many wiki sources are cited in this conversation. It is going to be a fun game, before this becomes 404
[QUOTE]On May 21 2009 12:53 Aegraen wrote: [QUOTE]On May 21 2009 12:23 Motiva wrote: [QUOTE]On May 21 2009 12:08 Mindcrime wrote: [QUOTE]On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote: If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today. [/QUOTE]
Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static.[/QUOTE]
And as you extol, evolution never stops. Why then in such an enormous sample size, have we not seen any evolution within our species. [/QUOTE]
contradictory statement?
If I remember correctly a program on the science channel said that our brain's gene for the cerebral cortex was being expressed a lot more than our ancestors.
Here's some evidence so that you can read it yourself.
isnt it obvious enough that life has evolved from one cell organisms, in the ocean, to things like jellyfish and just gotten more and more complex. sure- we could argue over the details, but really, isnt the overall pattern pretty obvious?
People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so?
You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great!
Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know everything wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
edit: I am going to start a tally about how many wiki sources are cited in this conversation. It is going to be a fun game, before this becomes 404
People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so?
You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great!
Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off?
I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual?
It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it.
I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless?
On May 21 2009 13:32 cUrsOr wrote: id like to see you debunk some wiki info sir, that could be your little project. its not like its something totally out of your hands.
edit: i have also read a lot about corporate edits on wiki that make me cautious about its accuracy
Finally. a forum based pseudo- intellectual debate connoisseur who doubts wiki's accuracy?
On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote: I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
I see.
I find it funny how completely clueless you are.
Modern science completely understands the mechanisms of muscles. What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck even wikipedia(which is extremely basic) completely explains how the work. Have you ever taken an organic biology or chemestry class? Every looked in a biology text book?
-snip- So there my friend is the SLIDING MUSCLE FILAMENT THEORY -snip-
hehe i smiled when i read that post since i owned the midterm that covered that material in physio this past semester
[QUOTE]On May 21 2009 13:28 Rev0lution wrote: [QUOTE]On May 21 2009 12:53 Aegraen wrote: [QUOTE]On May 21 2009 12:23 Motiva wrote: [QUOTE]On May 21 2009 12:08 Mindcrime wrote: [QUOTE]On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote: If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today. [/QUOTE]
Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static.[/QUOTE]
And as you extol, evolution never stops. Why then in such an enormous sample size, have we not seen any evolution within our species. [/QUOTE]
contradictory statement?
If I remember correctly a program on the science channel said that our brain's gene for the cerebral cortex was being expressed a lot more than our ancestors.
Here's some evidence so that you can read it yourself.
Not contradictory. Homosapien is our species is it not? Our genetic lineage is from Africa is it not? Did Africa not stay relatively the same throughout our evolutionary 'processes'? What was contradictory? You saying it doesn't make it so. Have we not propagated throughout the world in every conceivable environment now? (there are still isolated tribes throughout the world) Why aren't there radical mutations that have been passed through our species? Did we hit a 'physical' evolutionary peak? If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence. I postulated earlier this! So, if evolution can be disadvantageous how come we only advance, never take steps back. Is it because we evolved our brain to a point where we manipulate evolution? Do we tell those with abnormalities they are not allowed to mate? Nope.
Math dictates that we should experience drastic genetic changes within a sample size of 7 billion and this is just this generations global population!
Do you understand how much 7 billion is. Every single mathematical probability is nearly 100% with this kind of sample size. Why is it that we are evolving at such a slow pace comparatively with population statistics (which if evolution is all about probability we should be evolving at a faster pace, should we not?), compared to our lineage.
On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote: I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
I see.
I find it funny how completely clueless you are.
Modern science completely understands the mechanisms of muscles. What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck even wikipedia(which is extremely basic) completely explains how the work. Have you ever taken an organic biology or chemestry class? Every looked in a biology text book?
-snip- So there my friend is the SLIDING MUSCLE FILAMENT THEORY -snip-
hehe i smiled when i read that post since i owned the midterm that covered that material in physio this past semester
God i hated the muscle exam. But at least i remembered some of it XD
People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so?
You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great!
Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off?
I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual?
It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it.
I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless?
hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight.
I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul.
So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you:
You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing.
If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing.
- If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3
People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so?
You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great!
Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off?
I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual?
It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it.
I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless?
I'm still interested to know how birds evolved from dinosaurs, when we have literally no evidence of any 'birds' being in existence during the time of dinosaurs, couple the fact that dinosaurs went extinct in an abysmally short amount of time. We can see that birds have genetic traces of dinosaur traits (such as long tails with many bones, reminscent of fossilized dinosaur tails), however, we don't even understand the processes that it takes to go from a dinosaur to a bird, yet we know that we went from this thing apparently, to where we are today.
And you know what they came up with to try and solve this little 'problem'? Apparently, mutations occur at the same time. So, there goes the probability / randomness of mutation / evolution.
What asinine science. At least with carbon dating we know for a fact the decay rate of carbon. There is no way to prove the decay rate of 'mutations'. Of course, they throw this out there as if the word of science is infallible and needs no explanation to readers...take it at face value! Sounds awfully like something much of you rail against here.
On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote: If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence.
Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes?
On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote: If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence.
Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes?
In todays world, most everyone is breeding.
Edit: So are you saying those that are less intelligent, or physically less strong, or just average are more likely to pass on their genes?
Your question is inane.
The likelyhood over other variations doesn't matter as long as the genes are passed along. They should show up at some point by the process of exponential rates should they not?
People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so?
You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great!
Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off?
I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual?
It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it.
I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless?
hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight.
I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul.
So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you:
You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing.
If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing.
- If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3
But our explanations of evolution are adequate. We have models and theories that show why things happen and predict what will happen, these can be tested and proved. Just because we don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand things.
On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote: If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence.
Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes?
Nope. Sadly not in this day and age.
but- Bring on genetic engineering!!!!!
I can't wait to have a 200 iq with a sexy body. i am going to freeze myself until i can achieve that. lol
i dont like the stronger = better idea of evolution. isnt the new thing more about finding a niche in the system? filling a role, as in consuming things that are abundant and being adapted to the environment. the species that filled the niche the best survive, not really the "Strongest". survival of the fittest=best fit... not strongest.
People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so?
You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great!
Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off?
I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual?
It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it.
I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless?
hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight.
I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul.
So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you:
You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing.
If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing.
- If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3
But our explanations of evolution are adequate. We have models and theories that show why things happen and predict what will happen, these can be tested and proved. Just because we don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand things.
What's your point in posting?
How do you predict mutations that are random? Within that, how do you predict what kind of mutation, since apparently, there are so many genes and numbers of possible mutations its staggering (earlier posters words).
On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote: If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence.
Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes?
Nope. Sadly not in this day and age.
but- Bring on genetic engineering!!!!!
I can't wait to have a 200 iq with a sexy body. i am going to freeze myself until i can achieve that. lol
People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so?
You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great!
Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off?
I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual?
It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it.
I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless?
hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight.
I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul.
So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you:
You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing.
If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing.
- If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3
But our explanations of evolution are adequate. We have models and theories that show why things happen and predict what will happen, these can be tested and proved. Just because we don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand things.
What's your point in posting?
We have models and theories that cannot be tested? ohh snap. Science we have a problem. This is going against our most sacred of all doctrines! The scientific method no!!!!!!
Scientific Method:
1. Ask a question
2.Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis (Really this is where evolution for the time being should stay.)
4. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment (cant do that)
5. Analyze your data and draw a conclusion (cant do that)
6.Report your results (cant do that either)
So coming from my devils advocate point of view- is evolution a theory? no- is it a hypothesis? yes. can evolution become fact? Yes (but right now, we just don't know enough about anything.)
On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote: If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence.
Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes?
Nope. Sadly not in this day and age.
but- Bring on genetic engineering!!!!!
I can't wait to have a 200 iq with a sexy body. i am going to freeze myself until i can achieve that. lol
We will be cyborgs before that ever happens.
that would be just as cool. Ghost in the shell anyone?
People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so?
You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great!
Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off?
I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual?
It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it.
I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless?
hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight.
I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul.
So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you:
You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing.
If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing.
- If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3
But our explanations of evolution are adequate. We have models and theories that show why things happen and predict what will happen, these can be tested and proved. Just because we don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand things.
What's your point in posting?
How do you predict mutations that are random? Within that, how do you predict what kind of mutation, since apparently, there are so many genes and numbers of possible mutations its staggering (earlier posters words).
You can't predict something that's random but I wouldn't know how you would predict anything about the nature of the mutations.
People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so?
You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great!
Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off?
I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual?
It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it.
I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless?
hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight.
I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul.
So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you:
You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing.
If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing.
- If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3
But our explanations of evolution are adequate. We have models and theories that show why things happen and predict what will happen, these can be tested and proved. Just because we don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand things.
What's your point in posting?
We have models and theories that cannot be tested? ohh snap. Science we have a problem. This is going against our most sacred of all doctrines! The scientific method no!!!!!!
Scientific Method:
1. Ask a question
2.Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis (Really this is where evolution for the time being should stay.)
4. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment (cant do that)
5. Analyze your data and draw a conclusion (cant do that)
6.Report your results (cant do that either)
So coming from my devils advocate point of view- is evolution a theory? no- is it a hypothesis? yes. can evolution become fact? Yes (but right now, we just don't know enough about anything.)
Evolutionary hypothesis: Genes are mutated which are then passed onto the next generation. If this mutation becomes a trait of the species then we can say that the species has evolved.
Do we agree on the hypothesis? If yes then I'll continue.
The whole problem with mutations is that, the body (lets use your body for an example) hates mutations. I mean it really hates them. When a cell is dividing, and something goes wrong- it will kill itself. Now cancer- is simply a mutation, that has not killed itself, and has propigated- and as you all know will eventually kill you.
When a virus infects you- it inserts its DNA/RNA into your cell, mutating it into a virus production factory. (once again the mutation is bad- and normally your body will kill it off.)
Your zygote/baby has a mutation- most of the time, it will miss carriage or kill itself.
It's just the nature of the beast. the living body simply does not like mutations.
People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so?
You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great!
Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off?
I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual?
It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it.
I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless?
hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight.
I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul.
So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you:
You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing.
If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing.
- If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3
But our explanations of evolution are adequate. We have models and theories that show why things happen and predict what will happen, these can be tested and proved. Just because we don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand things.
What's your point in posting?
We have models and theories that cannot be tested? ohh snap. Science we have a problem. This is going against our most sacred of all doctrines! The scientific method no!!!!!!
Scientific Method:
1. Ask a question
2.Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis (Really this is where evolution for the time being should stay.)
4. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment (cant do that)
5. Analyze your data and draw a conclusion (cant do that)
6.Report your results (cant do that either)
So coming from my devils advocate point of view- is evolution a theory? no- is it a hypothesis? yes. can evolution become fact? Yes (but right now, we just don't know enough about anything.)
Evolutionary hypothesis: Genes are mutated which are then passed onto the next generation. If this mutation becomes a trait of the species then we can say that the species has evolved.
Do we agree on the hypothesis? If yes then I'll continue.
Sure- but do you have any empirical data? or is this simply conjecture.
On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote: If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence.
Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes?
Nope. Sadly not in this day and age.
but- Bring on genetic engineering!!!!!
I can't wait to have a 200 iq with a sexy body. i am going to freeze myself until i can achieve that. lol
We will be cyborgs before that ever happens.
that would be just as cool. Ghost in the shell anyone?
I for one would love to have a cyber brain <3
But if you replace your brain are you still Misrah
On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote: If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence.
Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes?
In todays world, most everyone is breeding.
Edit: So are you saying those that are less intelligent, or physically less strong, or just average are more likely to pass on their genes?
Your question is inane.
The likelyhood over other variations doesn't matter as long as the genes are passed along. They should show up at some point by the process of exponential rates should they not?
You weren't talking about the species as a whole? Then what's the problem? Incredibly strong individuals and incredibly intelligent individuals exist.
On May 21 2009 14:03 Misrah wrote: The whole problem with mutations is that, the body (lets use your body for an example) hates mutations. I mean it really hates them. When a cell is dividing, and something goes wrong- it will kill itself. Now cancer- is simply a mutation, that has not killed itself, and has propigated- and as you all know will eventually kill you.
When a virus infects you- it inserts its DNA/RNA into your cell, mutating it into a virus production factory. (once again the mutation is bad- and normally your body will kill it off.)
Your zygote/baby has a mutation- most of the time, it will miss carriage or kill itself.
It's just the nature of the beast. the living body simply does not like mutations.
Plenty of things can go wrong in a cell without it killing itself. Silent mutations, point mutations, LINE/SINE insertion... this shit happens all the time.
On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote: If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence.
Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes?
Nope. Sadly not in this day and age.
but- Bring on genetic engineering!!!!!
I can't wait to have a 200 iq with a sexy body. i am going to freeze myself until i can achieve that. lol
We will be cyborgs before that ever happens.
that would be just as cool. Ghost in the shell anyone?
I for one would love to have a cyber brain <3
But if you replace your brain are you still Misrah
I don't care. I would be the first in line! Image! a super fast, super smart, web surfing brain? I would kill for one of those.
On May 21 2009 14:03 Misrah wrote: The whole problem with mutations is that, the body (lets use your body for an example) hates mutations. I mean it really hates them. When a cell is dividing, and something goes wrong- it will kill itself. Now cancer- is simply a mutation, that has not killed itself, and has propigated- and as you all know will eventually kill you.
When a virus infects you- it inserts its DNA/RNA into your cell, mutating it into a virus production factory. (once again the mutation is bad- and normally your body will kill it off.)
Your zygote/baby has a mutation- most of the time, it will miss carriage or kill itself.
It's just the nature of the beast. the living body simply does not like mutations.
Plenty of things can go wrong in a cell without it killing itself. Silent mutations, point mutations, LINE/SINE insertion... this shit happens all the time.
This is true. I was just trying to make the point that most of the time, a mutation is not something that the body likes, and or is beneficial in any way.
I don't understand why this is being hyped up so much, or how it is the missing link between humans and apes. Could someone explain it to me? This is my understanding:
sorry the thread is too long to read, especially with so many long argumentative posts..
On May 21 2009 14:03 Misrah wrote: The whole problem with mutations is that, the body (lets use your body for an example) hates mutations. I mean it really hates them. When a cell is dividing, and something goes wrong- it will kill itself. Now cancer- is simply a mutation, that has not killed itself, and has propigated- and as you all know will eventually kill you.
When a virus infects you- it inserts its DNA/RNA into your cell, mutating it into a virus production factory. (once again the mutation is bad- and normally your body will kill it off.)
Your zygote/baby has a mutation- most of the time, it will miss carriage or kill itself.
It's just the nature of the beast. the living body simply does not like mutations.
Plenty of things can go wrong in a cell without it killing itself. Silent mutations, point mutations, LINE/SINE insertion... this shit happens all the time.
This is true. I was just trying to make the point that most of the time, a mutation is not something that the body likes, and or is beneficial in any way.
Very true, its usually silent/nonsense/disruptive. Very rarely will a mutation lead to xray vision or something sweet.
On May 21 2009 14:03 Misrah wrote: The whole problem with mutations is that, the body (lets use your body for an example) hates mutations. I mean it really hates them. When a cell is dividing, and something goes wrong- it will kill itself. Now cancer- is simply a mutation, that has not killed itself, and has propigated- and as you all know will eventually kill you.
When a virus infects you- it inserts its DNA/RNA into your cell, mutating it into a virus production factory. (once again the mutation is bad- and normally your body will kill it off.)
Your zygote/baby has a mutation- most of the time, it will miss carriage or kill itself.
It's just the nature of the beast. the living body simply does not like mutations.
Plenty of things can go wrong in a cell without it killing itself. Silent mutations, point mutations, LINE/SINE insertion... this shit happens all the time.
This is true. I was just trying to make the point that most of the time, a mutation is not something that the body likes, and or is beneficial in any way.
Very true, its usually silent/nonsense/disruptive. Very rarely will a mutation lead to xray vision or something sweet.
Then why do so many different species have so many different capabilities?
Vipers - Heat Dolphins - Sonar Bats - Echolocation (ok, you can argue this is sonar/radar)
etc. I'm stoked to become superman though! Splice me with some owl/hawk vision
Another question. How come crocs and gators have remained relatively unchanged for hundreds of millions of years? Is there a point where you hit evolutionary peak? Seems to go against evolution, however.
Crocs and Gators are curious to study for evolution. Probability over 100+ million years would dictate the species would change.
On May 21 2009 14:37 Aegraen wrote: Another question. How come crocs and gators have remained relatively unchanged for hundreds of millions of years? Is there a point where you hit evolutionary peak? Seems to go against evolution, however.
Crocs and Gators are curious to study for evolution. Probability over 100+ million years would dictate the species would change.
Some species leap ahead others stay behind, maybe the crocs evolved by in subtle ways like being smaller and consuming less energy
On May 21 2009 14:03 Misrah wrote: The whole problem with mutations is that, the body (lets use your body for an example) hates mutations. I mean it really hates them. When a cell is dividing, and something goes wrong- it will kill itself. Now cancer- is simply a mutation, that has not killed itself, and has propigated- and as you all know will eventually kill you.
When a virus infects you- it inserts its DNA/RNA into your cell, mutating it into a virus production factory. (once again the mutation is bad- and normally your body will kill it off.)
Your zygote/baby has a mutation- most of the time, it will miss carriage or kill itself.
It's just the nature of the beast. the living body simply does not like mutations.
Plenty of things can go wrong in a cell without it killing itself. Silent mutations, point mutations, LINE/SINE insertion... this shit happens all the time.
This is true. I was just trying to make the point that most of the time, a mutation is not something that the body likes, and or is beneficial in any way.
Very true, its usually silent/nonsense/disruptive. Very rarely will a mutation lead to xray vision or something sweet.
Then why do so many different species have so many different capabilities?
Vipers - Heat Dolphins - Sonar Bats - Echolocation (ok, you can argue this is sonar/radar)
etc. I'm stoked to become superman though! Splice me with some owl/hawk vision
I would have to say probably cause "very rarely" ends up happening in 200 million years, coupled with the idea that these things happen multiple times every cell division.
Crocs have stayed as an apex predator forever, and the territories they have lived in have stayed pretty stable, and their prey have not managed to evade them. They have no reason to change, and so they don't change.
On May 21 2009 14:52 koreasilver wrote: Crocs have stayed as an apex predator forever, and the territories they have lived in have stayed pretty stable, and their prey have not managed to evade them. They have no reason to change, and so they don't change.
At least that's the idea that I'm getting.
same for humans. the only threat to man is his own mind.
On May 21 2009 14:22 fight_or_flight wrote: I don't understand why this is being hyped up so much, or how it is the missing link between humans and apes. Could someone explain it to me? This is my understanding:
sorry the thread is too long to read, especially with so many long argumentative posts..
That old ladder representation is misleading and out of date because it looks like Apes stopped evolving, whilst we continued.
This is a bit closer, but obviously still crap:
In reality we aren't descended from any modern day Ape.... we just share a common ancestor. This Lemur-Monkey is possibly a direct descendant of humans.
The fossil is the link between other mammals and apes. It's a special fossil because it's so well preserved but the article does over hype its significance.
The "missing link" you may have heard of is just Creationists spreading mis-information.
On May 21 2009 14:22 fight_or_flight wrote: I don't understand why this is being hyped up so much, or how it is the missing link between humans and apes. Could someone explain it to me? This is my understanding:
sorry the thread is too long to read, especially with so many long argumentative posts..
It would be more like this fossil would be one of the first species to split from the ape lineage.
Like the 2nd drawing someone posted and putting the "missing link" near that split on the human side. The thing that really interests me the most is where it was found. Germany? We have fossils with the same kind of primitive condition (maybe more advanced because they were less lemur like?) but they are all in Africa so not only could the immense age of this fossil be important but the location is just out to left field. This can still be a really good find, but for all the wrong reasons that the article hyped it hah. I really want to see the analysis on this thing and I hope it is published soon. Somehow I think that since Paleo is kind of an ego driven field so I would not be surprised to see a lot of people initially attack the crap out of it because it could potentially could revolutionize early theory. We will see how it holds up once the rest of the scientific community gets to study it.
On May 21 2009 14:22 fight_or_flight wrote: I don't understand why this is being hyped up so much, or how it is the missing link between humans and apes. Could someone explain it to me? This is my understanding:
sorry the thread is too long to read, especially with so many long argumentative posts..
It would be more like this fossil would be one of the first species to split from the ape lineage.
Like the 2nd drawing someone posted and putting the "missing link" near that split on the human side.
I don't think you've understood it.
I found some diagrams that might help people understand.
On May 21 2009 15:43 Klive5ive wrote: The "missing link" you may have heard of is just Creationists spreading mis-information.
Plus it was the second sentence of the article in the OP...
Anyway, are there any other fossils which are suspected "direct ancestors"?
So using the first diagram any fossil of H.Sapiens, H.erectus, H.habilis, Australopiths, forest apes would be suspected direct ancestors. But this new fossil is older than all of them.
Maybe I was reading the article wrong but from what it sounded like was that it was one of the first in the line after the last common ancestor between apes and humans.
On May 21 2009 13:12 Misrah wrote: So there my friend is the SLIDING MUSCLE FILAMENT THEORY
You learned to type all that off the top of your head but you never learned what a scientific theory is?
Oh god...
Actually, I'm going to turn that back on you. Anything with the label "theory" really, truly, could be completely wrong. And there is a non-infinitesimal chance of that being the case. In fact, every theory in the past has proven to be wrong... (obviously thats why its a theory from the past and not a current theory)
Gravity is a good example. It was a good "theory" until someone discovered that it was kind of wrong. Now a physicist will look at you with a strait face and tell you that 95% of the universe isn't observable. The funny part is that he invented that extra 95% of the universe because he is assuming his old theory is correct, so the universe must be wrong.
The point is that people shouldn't get so emotionally invested in theories. They are just temporary intellectual constructs to get from point A to point B, and they all are probably wrong. At the very least, they are most certainly not right (that is, equivalent to reality).
Anything made up by humans could be completely wrong. Is that your point?
Have you understood anything about a scientific theory? He claims we don't know how muscles work based on the fact we have a model describing exactly how it works, underlining the word 'theory'.
You seem to understand it even less than he does.
Newton's theory of gravity didn't hold up in all cases. So now we have a better one. It was called a theory when it was 'true' and it's called one now that it is 'false'. That has nothing to do with it.
Yeah we now have something called inflation theory which is very speculative. But this doesn't do anything to show you know what is meant when scientists use it. Regardless of if something is expected to be improved or refuted, regardless of if there is 100 years of experimental data or none at all to back it, it's still called a theory.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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.
How is this thing the "missing link"? We don't even need a missing link. The whole idea of the "missing link" is pure rhetoric, we've had a chain of links found in fossils for a LONG time now. The Australopithecus lineage, Homo habilis and Homo erectus provide a really compelling set of evidence for human evolution already.
This fossil doesn't do anything. Not to mention, its in the completely wrong era. 47 million years ago is FAR too early to be ancestral to the ape-human lineage. Considering that according to modern evidence and classification, humans essentially ARE apes (that is, humans comfortably nest within chimps and gorillas, and all the apes are more closely related to one another than apes as a whole are related to monkeys).
I wish they would stop pushing this shit for marketing reasons. The evidence for evolution is already overwhelming and is particularly well documented with regard to hominids.
Every fossil is 'missing' until it's found. And then it links the generation before it to the generation after it.
But yeah when people claim there is a missing ling in human evolution they can never answer where this missing species should be but. Between habilis and erectus? Between Australopithecus and habilis? Just before Australopithecus?
If you take just cranial volume it's a pretty steady progression.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists.
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.
Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be.
Young earth creationists have already had enough evidence to sorta screw that whole party. This link isn't really going to change a whole lot.
afaik, most Christians don't believe in YE creationism.
Nintu's right on this one. I was born and raised in a pretty Catholic family. I am a Catholic. Most of my friends from high school are Catholic. At my college, I have met people from all sorts of backgrounds and religions. Long story short, I know A LOT of catholics (as well as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, ect) and I am still yet to meet one person in my life who believes in creationism. I think the only people that still believe in Creationism are strict Mormons (don't quote me on this one, I may be wrong). The Church's stance on "The Beginning" is that evolution DID occur, but it was by the hand of God that we became the current product of millions of years of evolution. I mean, how do you expect to disprove something that is a separate entity of this world by using worldly discoveries?
On May 21 2009 18:06 Diomedes wrote: Anything made up by humans could be completely wrong. Is that your point?
Have you understood anything about a scientific theory? He claims we don't know how muscles work based on the fact we have a model describing exactly how it works, underlining the word 'theory'.
You seem to understand it even less than he does.
Newton's theory of gravity didn't hold up in all cases. So now we have a better one. It was called a theory when it was 'true' and it's called one now that it is 'false'. That has nothing to do with it.
Yeah we now have something called inflation theory which is very speculative. But this doesn't do anything to show you know what is meant when scientists use it. Regardless of if something is expected to be improved or refuted, regardless of if there is 100 years of experimental data or none at all to back it, it's still called a theory.
Also if you would have actually read my rather short post about the supposed molecular interactions between myosin and actin- you can see where discrepancies lie. This is merely what science 'thinks' happens. But truthfully, we have no idea how it actually works. The sliding action of the two large protein molecules is simply hypothetical, and is postulated out from our very simple understanding of how these proteins work inside of a myosin filament.
Are you one of the pseudo-intellectuals that also thinks we understand the brain? Because if so- i would love to hear your take on it.
c'mon misrah, if you wanna talk about supposed molecular interactions between myosin and actin, there's a thread for that. bottom line is none of these theories are confirmed, which is why they're called theories. we're learning new things everyday in fields like these that completely change the way we look at life or how life works/originates/whatever.
On May 22 2009 04:48 irishash wrote: c'mon misrah, if you wanna talk about supposed molecular interactions between myosin and actin, there's a thread for that. bottom line is none of these theories are confirmed, which is why they're called theories. we're learning new things everyday in fields like these that completely change the way we look at life or how life works/originates/whatever.
Then how come so many people take evolution as fact? As I pointed out earlier, its no different than religious zealotry. It's human nature. Humans will always instinctively believe in 'something' on faith.
Personally, I'd rather have that believe at least have some philosophy involved. As we all know, most people need incentives in life.
On May 22 2009 04:55 Aegraen wrote: Then how come so many people take evolution as fact?
They take it as a fact because it is. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Populations of biological organisms change over time; that is evolution and that is a fact. The explanations for how and why these changes occur are the theory and will probably be continuously revised into the foreseeable future.
On May 22 2009 04:55 Aegraen wrote: Then how come so many people take evolution as fact?
They take it as a fact because it is. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Populations of biological organisms change over time; that is evolution and that is a fact. The explanations for how and why these changes occur are the theory and will probably be continuously revised into the foreseeable future.
On May 22 2009 04:55 Aegraen wrote: Then how come so many people take evolution as fact?
They take it as a fact because it is. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Populations of biological organisms change over time; that is evolution and that is a fact. The explanations for how and why these changes occur are the theory and will probably be continuously revised into the foreseeable future.
Very true, people believed in evolution way before Darwin, however, it was not a mainstream theory simply because the mechanism people had provided was not viable. What Darwin did was propose a mechanism for evolution that made sense. Whats funny is that while they accepted most of his theories, Natural Selection was almost universally rejected at first.
On May 22 2009 04:48 irishash wrote: c'mon misrah, if you wanna talk about supposed molecular interactions between myosin and actin, there's a thread for that. bottom line is none of these theories are confirmed, which is why they're called theories. we're learning new things everyday in fields like these that completely change the way we look at life or how life works/originates/whatever.
Then how come so many people take evolution as fact?
Because evolution is a fact. Natural and sexual selection are Darwin's theories that attempt to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Put simply, evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. This is a documented fact.
Darwin theorized that this occured due to natural selection and sexual selection. A side effect of this theory is that all major families of organisms existing today are theorized to have descended from a common ancestor, given the common molecular mechanisms of all major families of organisms organisms.
There are possible fringe exceptions with some microorganisms, but all multicellular organisms are sufficiently similar in their basic chemistry that this theory is very well-supported.
On May 22 2009 04:55 Aegraen wrote:
As I pointed out earlier, its no different than religious zealotry. It's human nature. Humans will always instinctively believe in 'something' on faith.
Wow finding this fossil finally convinced everyone here we're monkeys! Cool! This is so convincing indeed! Come on man let's find more bones intermediate to the process of the primate standing even straighter and bone structure even flatter and form them in one straight line and there, we have evolution... Congrates on this very Einsteinic view of life. Totally flawless
On May 22 2009 07:39 DarkYoDA wrote: Wow finding this fossil finally convinced everyone here we're monkeys! Cool! This is so convincing indeed! Come on man let's find more bones intermediate to the process of the primate standing even straighter and bone structure even flatter and form them in one straight line and there, we have evolution... Congrates on this very Einsteinic view of life. Totally flawless
After scratching my head for a while, I think I finally understand why is it so hard to get into some people's head something so simple like the theory of evolution.
I have found many examples on nature that was really hard to explain as well (there is a moph who emits ultra-sounds in the same freq as bats, to fool them, how the hell did that evolve?). But instead of quitting and saying evolution 'must' be wrong, I just took my time thinking about it until I finally figured it out. But some people don't do that, this is how it goes:
Normal reasonable person: - Finds one example that cannot explain with evolution theory - thinks "hmm.. maybe I'm missing something, I'll try to figure it out" - scratches head for minutes/hours/days/whatever - figures it out - concludes evolution might make sense and is a valid theory as far as my limited knowledge goes
Emotional arrogant: - Finds one example that cannot explain with evolution theory - thinks "wait.. if I, myself, cannot understand it, it must be wrong" - avoids thinking about it because it hurts his ego - concludes evolution is wrong, that random Darwin guy must be dumb - "aaahh.. feels so good to think that I'm smart!"
Cool, the fossil record is becoming more complete (though it will never even come close :-P). Also, there's no missing link, it's missing links: there's likely more than one transitional stage.
As for Science vs Religion, sure you can be a member of some religious denomination and accept evolution, look at Francis Collins (What went wrong!). Science always starts with the assumption that there is nothing supernatural and sees how far it can go with that assumption, which means we've been moving on without God in the equation for some time now.
I'm as agnostic about God as I am about faeries and goblins.
no logic or evidence will ever do anything to sway creationists, if they were susceptible to factual evidence or logical thinking they would have ceased to be creationists long before now
EPT![[image loading]](http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/05/20/alg_fossil_1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.google.pl/logos/missinglink.gif)
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.
![[image loading]](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/timeline.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9452/missinglink.png)
![[image loading]](http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/764/tree.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gctext/Inquiries/Inquiries_by_Unit/Unit_5_files/image015.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.niu.edu/pubaffairs/RELEASES/2000/MAR/primate/images/color_tree_thumb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://blstb.msn.com/i/91/66C435D695B0662AEA4DB5592F7B5C.jpg)
