Evolution?

[DR.NUMBERS]

I just want to see how many hell-fire bound unbelievers there are here so I'm going to ask whether or not you believe evolution is the most probable explanation for man's existence.








Also: http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

The text in the top left corner is the actual Alabama state disclaimer for books discussing evolution. The others are not real but perhaps should be.

http://www.evangelicalright.com/bible-sticker.jpg

[Bolter]

Yes.

[Killuminati]

/here we go again

[Vanno]

For life? No I think it fails to explain that. It explains the variety of life and biological economy quite well though.

[Spinewire]

nice poll you have got there....


No i think it's a retarded idea, i'm not some filthy stinking ape.

[Temet nosce]

First, you fail at making polls. Second, next time you try to troll at least do a better job. (oh and that last link for bible warning stickers was vaguely amusing at least)

[DR.NUMBERS]

For life? No I think it fails to explain that. It explains the variety of life and biological economy quite well though.

Not for life, for man's existence today.


First, you fail at making polls. Second, next time you try to troll at least do a better job. (oh and that last link for bible warning stickers was vaguely amusing at least)

Who are you again?

nice poll you have got there....


No i think it's a retarded idea, i'm not some filthy stinking ape.

Me neither by god!


/here we go again

Enjoy the ride! Remember, keep your arms and legs within the ride at all times.

[holychicken]

You mean top left.

And not believing in evolution at this point is almost as foolish as not believing world is round.

[Jovien]

*shakes head*

Yes...

Yes...

And only some of us are evolved, most are still dumb apes. :)

[Poem]

You mean top left.

And not believing in evolution at this point is almost as foolish as not believing world is round.

The world isn't round. Stop spreading lies.

[GRCPan]

It's a possibility that a genetic abnormality caused some apes to turn into humans, but you can't be sure about it.

[Jovien]

You mean top left.

And not believing in evolution at this point is almost as foolish as not believing world is round.

Actually its not even a sphere, its actually wider along the equator then between the poles, this is due in part to the spinning of the earth on its axis.

:P

Evolution has been proven repeatedly its just that no one of merit has taken its cause up yet. Cue the US guild of Actors LOL!

[Temet nosce]

Who are you again?


Your fucking conscience asshole, why the fuck did you abuse me like this!? It used to be so good, but then you started listening to those people who told you that trolls didn't need to be good at what they did, and now look at me, I'm a wreck. Damn you! *takes another swig from a bottle and passes out*

(Translation: I'm here for the +1s, and to occasionally mock people since this thread is pretty much pointless))

[holychicken]

Actually its not even a sphere, its actually wider along the equator then between the poles, this is due in part to the spinning of the earth on its axis.

:P
If we are going to get technical . . . I said "round," not sphere. An oblate spheroid is, in fact, round.

:P

Evolution has been proven repeatedly its just that no one of merit has taken its cause up yet. Cue the US guild of Actors LOL!
I think you mean the Film Actor's Guild. hehehe

[DR.NUMBERS]

Your fucking conscience asshole, why the fuck did you abuse me like this!? It used to be so good, but then you started listening to those people who told you that trolls didn't need to be good at what they did, and now look at me, I'm a wreck. Damn you! *takes another swig from a bottle and passes out*

(Translation: I'm here for the +1s, and to occasionally mock people since this thread is pretty much pointless))

Oh ok, I see we share common interests, enjoy your +1. (Also, this post entitles you to another +1, its the gift that keeps giving.)

[Jovien]

It's a possibility that a genetic abnormality caused some apes to turn into humans, but you can't be sure about it.

Actually the mechanism for evolution has yet to be proven, but the act has been proven.

Microbiologists have long since observed evolution in bacteria cultures, and recent article showed a surprising result. Two separate basteria samples stored in two separate storage units under different conditions, both developing the same mutation but at different times.

Microbiologists are still looking into this one but the current theory is that something happened to the samples much earlier in their life before they were separate that then manifests itself as evolution later on. i.e. a genetic mutation.

I am not a complete believer in the term of survival of the fittest as this implies that only physical elements as desirable. But we all know that intelligence is worth a mountain worth more than any amount of physical advantage.

[Temet nosce]

Oh ok, I see we share common interests, enjoy your +1. (Also, this post entitles you to another +1, its the gift that keeps giving.)

*gives a vague salute like motion with the bottle from where he's lying collapsed on the floor* Thank you, thank you. So few people appreciate a good show these days.

(Well, the gift that keeps giving us amusement, and the mods headaches.)

[holychicken]

Actually the mechanism for evolution has yet to be proven, but the act has been proven.
What do you mean the mechanism has not been proven? We have witnessed genetic mutation and have seen "survival of the fittest" in action and have pretty much see geographically isolated species diverge genetically. What we have not seen is the actual evolution from one high level species to the next. . . but that is something that takes thousands of years and we haven't really been looking for much more than 100 at this point. . . if even that long.

Microbiologists have long since observed evolution in bacteria cultures, and recent article showed a surprising result. Two separate basteria samples stored in two separate storage units under different conditions, both developing the same mutation but at different times.

Microbiologists are still looking into this one but the current theory is that something happened to the samples much earlier in their life before they were separate that then manifests itself as evolution later on. i.e. a genetic mutation.
Something I would like to read about. Do you have a link?

I am not a complete believer in the term of survival of the fittest as this implies that only physical elements as desirable. But we all know that intelligence is worth a mountain worth more than any amount of physical advantage.
I don't think 'survival of the fittest' tells the whole story, certainly there is something different going on with humans right now, but it does not imply "only physical elements."

[Delwyn]

Yes evolution. But damn. Whats the point of this?

Those of us who understand scientific method will never see the superstitious people's arguments and they will never see ours.

Socrates had a point by saying that if you enter a debate without the intention of seing the other side's points, the debate isnt worth having.

[Carnifex]

Fuck religion to be honest.

Evolution is the best way to explain how we got here at the moment. We haven't figured it out fully yet but once we do (and we will) religion will cease to exist.

/thread

[DR.NUMBERS]

Fuck religion to be honest.

Evolution is the best way to explain how we got here at the moment. We haven't figured it out fully yet but once we do (and we will) religion will cease to exist.

/thread

I'll remind god in my prayers about your appointment with the hell-fires.

[Temet nosce]

Yes evolution. But damn. Whats the point of this?

Those of us who understand scientific method will never see the superstitious people's arguments and they will never see ours.

Socrates had a point by saying that if you enter a debate without the intention of seing the other side's points, the debate isnt worth having.

Exactly, which to be honest is why I haven't bothered to be serious even slightly in this thread. (also, that was excellent and succinct summary)

Anyways, back to the +1s.

[Carnifex]

I'll remind god in my prayers about your appointment with the hell-fires.

You do that. But it will fail because god does not exist.

[Spinewire]

Fuck religion to be honest.

Evolution is the best way to explain how we got here at the moment. We haven't figured it out fully yet but once we do (and we will) religion will cease to exist.

/thread
unless god just made it work that way....

[Carnifex]

unless god just made it work that way....

No he didn't. Religion tells us nothing about evolution. Humans were just there all of a sudden according to them.

Now let this thread die because discussing this is pointless.

[Honest Bill]

There are plenty of holes in the evolution theory.

For instance i saw a woman at the shop this morning, and i'll be fucked if she wasn't descended from a manatee

[holychicken]

No he didn't. Religion tells us nothing about evolution. Humans were just there all of a sudden according to them.

Now let this thread die because discussing this is pointless.
Actually, many religions, including my own, believe that god is everything. Thus evolution would, in fact, be an act of god.

[Spinewire]

No he didn't. Religion tells us nothing about evolution. Humans were just there all of a sudden according to them.

Now let this thread die because discussing this is pointless.He works in mysterious ways? It's all about faith? Look at a beautiful sunset and tell me there is no god?

i'm not buying it either tbh

[Virtra]

An unqualified yes.

[Spinewire]

An unqualified yes.
shut your dirty drop out mouth and bend to gods will(y).

[Virtra]

shut your dirty drop out mouth and bend to gods will(y).Unless gods have evolved from men that's a fairly empty threat to me. :D

[DR.NUMBERS]

You do that. But it will fail because god does not exist.

You wait until you have to tell that to his face!



... that will be just before he cast's you down for all eternity into damnation in hell-fire for your sinful thoughts and deeds.

[Arkh]

For life? No I think it fails to explain that. It explains the variety of life and biological economy quite well though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg Near 00:40

[tallefred]

I'm not entirely sure. Does evolution exist? Almost for sure. Is that why we are here? How the hell should I know?

[Tdog]

Yes evolution. But damn. Whats the point of this?

Those of us who understand scientific method will never see the superstitious people's arguments and they will never see ours.

Socrates had a point by saying that if you enter a debate without the intention of seing the other side's points, the debate isnt worth having.

See the "scientific method" is a man made idea which is subject to change based on new information we "discover" over time. Therefor Science cannot be an absolute answer to anything and it is no more right then any other form of defining the unknown.

Now back on topic.

Evolution sure it can be correct but who knows for sure. It is just as right a any other guess on why we are here.

[Delwyn]

See the "scientific method" is a man made idea which is subject to change based on new information we "discover" over time. Therefor Science cannot be an absolute answer to anything and it is no more right then any other form of defining the unknown.


Of course. It's not perfect, nothing is. But it's pretty damn solid, and is a need to know thing in order to understand what it really means when you have a scientific theory.

Also, religion is also man made. :)

[Spk]

I kind of like the beautiful simplicity of evolution and the replicator part of it as a possible explanation for the appearance of life (on earth or wherever it came from in the first place, as panspermia is just as probable). Basically, it starts with molecules grouping together and ending up forming a structure able to replicate itself. And then natural selection kicks in, inducing evolution of the structures that are best at replicating themselves, because they're going to be the most numerous.

You have to keep in mind this probably took place over hundreds of millions, if not a few billions, of years up until now.

[Tdog]

Of course. It's not perfect, nothing is. But it's pretty damn solid, and is a need to know thing in order to understand what it really means when you have a scientific theory.

Also, religion is also man made. :)

Yep and thats my point, both science and religion are man make, meaning niether is more right then the other.

Evolution is just another way to define how and why we are the way we are, just like religion does.

[Buckk Dich]

Yep and thats my point, both science and religion are man make, meaning niether is more right then the other.

Evolution is just another way to define how and why we are the way we are, just like religion does.

Except evolution uses science, with quantifiable analysis, and actual evidence to show the growth of live on our planet.

Religion was just created to try to explain answers that man could not understand in the old ages of the planet.

Now that we have science, why would we believe something that some ancient folk dreamed up to explain our existence?

There is no "believing" in evolution, there is just acknowledgment of given evidence. If one actually looks at this evidence, and understands it, then it is quite hard to denounce evolution.

[Tdog]

Except evolution uses science, with quantifiable analysis, and actual evidence to show the growth of live on our planet.

Religion was just created to try to explain answers that man could not understand in the old ages of the planet.

Now that we have science, why would we believe something that some ancient folk dreamed up to explain our existence?

There is no "believing" in evolution, there is just acknowledgment of given evidence. If one actually looks at this evidence, and understands it, then it is quite hard to denounce evolution.

No your wrong.

You have to believe in the science behind evolution in order to believe in evolution. You have to believe that science cannot be wrong in order to believe in what science explains.

Now dont get me wrong, I personally believe in Evolution because it makes sense to me but it does not mean that it is not beyond the realm of possiability that Evolution is wrong.

[Spk]

Evolution is just another way to define how and why we are the way we are, just like religion does.

Yeah, except religion is full of shit, and science has proofs and demonstrations to back this up. :rolleyes: And for things that cannot realistically be proven due to the scope of the problem, there are theories that try to answer most parts of the problem using current proven knowledge and technics.

[holychicken]

See the "scientific method" is a man made idea which is subject to change based on new information we "discover" over time. Therefor Science cannot be an absolute answer to anything and it is no more right then any other form of defining the unknown.
Faulty logic. Just because it can change with new information does not mean it can never be an absolute answer. In fact, it might be the only hope because it is the only explanation to the unknown that says "something could happen tomorrow that will change how we think about everything." Religions are not so willing to adapt.

Evolution sure it can be correct but who knows for sure. It is just as right a any other guess on why we are here.
It depends on how you define "right." Religious explanations are unfalsifiable and are, generally, completely useless when it comes to being practical.

[Tdog]

Yeah, except religion is full of shit, and science has proofs and demonstrations to back this up. :rolleyes: And for things that cannot realistically be proven due to the scope of the problem, there are theories that try to answer most parts of the problem using current proven knowledge and technics.

Religion is full of shit in your opinion and Science has proofs and demonstrations to back this up in your opinion.

Science and Religion are both man made, which make both of them subject to human errors, which means both are equal when given the chance to explain something because both are based on flawed human though.

[Tdog]

Faulty logic. Just because it can change with new information does not mean it can never be an absolute answer. In fact, it might be the only hope because it is the only explanation to the unknown that says "something could happen tomorrow that will change how we think about everything." Religions are not so willing to adapt.


It depends on how you define "right." Religious explanations are unfalsifiable and are, generally, completely useless when it comes to being practical.


Again this is your opinion, your opinion does not mean its correct.

Nothing is absolute in this world, this you should have already figured out for yourself though.

Everything is based on what we are taught, if you taught a child from day one everything that we currently know is wrong and then taught him anything else, that child would believe that he was right and others were wrong.

It all comes down to your personal opinions and which side(science/Religion) you wish to put your faith in.

[holychicken]

No your wrong.

You have to believe in the science behind evolution in order to believe in evolution.
Again, the difference is that there are falsifiable theories based on observation behind the science.

You have to believe that science cannot be wrong in order to believe in what science explains.
WRONG! That is the beauty of science. If you don't believe it, you can go out and prove that it is wrong.

Now dont get me wrong, I personally believe in Evolution because it makes sense to me but it does not mean that it is not beyond the realm of possiability that Evolution is wrong.
True. But to equate it to religion is utter nonsense. They are two completely different things.

[holychicken]

Again this is your opinion, your opinion does not mean its correct.
Neither of my comments were a matter of opinion. Religion deals with faith, it does not deal with practicality. Science does not deal with faith, it deals with practicality.

Nothing is absolute in this world, this you should have already figured out for yourself though.
I have and I have said nothing that should have led you to believe otherwise.

It all comes down to your personal opinions and which side(science/Religion) you wish to put your faith in.
Wrong. Science requires no faith, that's the whole point, and one does not necessarily preclude the other.

[Tdog]

Again, the difference is that there are falsifiable theories based on observation behind the science.


WRONG! That is the beauty of science. If you don't believe it, you can go out and prove that it is wrong.


True. But to equate it to religion is utter nonsense. They are two completely different things.

Again, to be able to prove that something is wrong, you must prove something else is right. The problem with that is that you will be using the "science" that you have learned from someone else to prove something wrong, while proving something else right.

You will be basing your findings on "proof" you came up with based on someone elses "rules". These rules are the problem, just because you can prove these "rules" are correct does not mean they are correct, you proved they were correct based on the information that you were taught which does not mean it is correct.

Just like you can say 1 + 1 = 2 and that is always true. That is not always true. 1 + 1 = 2 because that is what we were taught based on someone at some point in time deciding that 1 + 1 = 2.

Do you follow. Sorry I am not very good at showing my point though written words because I suck at grammer and spelling.

[Tdog]

Neither of my comments were a matter of opinion. Religion deals with faith, it does not deal with practicality. Science does not deal with faith, it deals with practicality.


I have and I have said nothing that should have led you to believe otherwise.


Wrong. Science requires no faith, that's the whole point, and one does not necessarily preclude the other.

How can you say Science is right with no faith in how science works?
If you dont believe in Science then how can you believe in the Results based on said science.

Its pretty simple, you must have faith in science to believe in the Results of science

[holychicken]

Again, to be able to prove that something is wrong, you must prove something else is right. The problem with that is that you will be using the "science" that you have learned from someone else to prove something wrong, while proving something else right.

You will be basing your findings on "proof" you came up with based on someone elses "rules". These rules are the problem, just because you can prove these "rules" are correct does not mean they are correct, you proved they were correct based on the information that you were taught which does not mean it is correct.

Just like you can say 1 + 1 = 2 and that is always true. That is not always true. 1 + 1 = 2 because that is what we were taught based on someone at some point in time deciding that 1 + 1 = 2.

Do you follow. Sorry I am not very good at showing my point though written words.
I don't follow what you are saying. However, I am pretty sure you aren't responding to anything I have said.

Religion requires faith. Science does not require faith. If you think something is wrong in science, you can go out and disprove it. . . even if you want to go back to the most basic things that science has discovered or upon which the science you are challenging is based. This is not something that exists in religion.

Many religions say, this is the way things are, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Science says, this is what we have observed and our explanation for those observations which we can use to predict/explain future events. If, for some reason, the prediction does not match the theory, we throw out the theory and start over again.

Religion works one way, it has the answers and it tries to push the observation into that answer. Science works the other way, it takes the observation and tries to determine the answers from those observations.

Equating the two is nonsense. Keep in mind I am both deeply religious and a scientist.

[Tdog]

I don't follow what you are saying. However, I am pretty sure you aren't responding to anything I have said.

Religion requires faith. Science does not require faith. If you think something is wrong in science, you can go out and disprove it. . . even if you want to go back to the most basic things that science has discovered or upon which the science you are challenging is based. This is not something that exists in religion.

Many religions say, this is the way things are, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Science says, this is what we have observed and our explanation for those observations which we can use to predict/explain future events. If, for some reason, the prediction does not match the theory, we throw out the theory and start over again.

Religion works one way, it has the answers and it tries to push the observation into that answer. Science works the other way, it takes the observation and tries to determine the answers from those observations.

Equating the two is nonsense. Keep in mind I am both deeply religious and a scientist.

Okay I can agree with this for the most part.... You do need faith in science though, without faith in it, then you would not be able to believe the results that if finds.

Science is more flexable then Religion, I will give you that, but both are man made to do the same exact function. Explaining the unexplainable.

[holychicken]

How can you say Science is right with no faith in how science works?
When did I say 'science is right?' I think I explicitly said that when science is wrong, you can correct it.

If you dont believe in Science then how can you believe in the Results based on said science.

Its pretty simple, you must have faith in science to believe in the Results of science
Wrong. If I drop a ball 100000 times and every time it accelerates to the ground at the same rate, are you saying that I have to have faith that the next time it I drop it it will accelerate to the floor at the same rate?

That's hogwash. I am not saying there isn't a chance it will fly away. . .which would then require us to rethink our science behind it. . .but certainly I am not relying on faith for it to hit the ground.

[holychicken]

Okay I can agree with this for the most part.... You do need faith in science though, without faith in it, then you would not be able to believe the results that if finds.
I think you might be confusing terms here. Sure, I guess it requires faith in a very vague and general sense. . . but it is not, at all, the same type of faith that religion requires.

Science is more flexable then Religion, I will give you that, but both are man made to do the same exact function. Explaining the unexplainable.
The both explain the unexplainable, but they are not the same thing. It is like saying that both shit and food will fill your stomach, so equating the two makes sense. It just doesn't.

[Teutates]

Again, to be able to prove that something is wrong, you must prove something else is right. The problem with that is that you will be using the "science" that you have learned from someone else to prove something wrong, while proving something else right.

You will be basing your findings on "proof" you came up with based on someone elses "rules". These rules are the problem, just because you can prove these "rules" are correct does not mean they are correct, you proved they were correct based on the information that you were taught which does not mean it is correct.

Just like you can say 1 + 1 = 2 and that is always true. That is not always true. 1 + 1 = 2 because that is what we were taught based on someone at some point in time deciding that 1 + 1 = 2.

Do you follow. Sorry I am not very good at showing my point though written words because I suck at grammer and spelling.

1+1=2 is always true. No matter what.


Again this is your opinion, your opinion does not mean its correct.

Nothing is absolute in this world, this you should have already figured out for yourself though.

Everything is based on what we are taught, if you taught a child from day one everything that we currently know is wrong and then taught him anything else, that child would believe that he was right and others were wrong.

It all comes down to your personal opinions and which side(science/Religion) you wish to put your faith in.

Incorrect, the child would know it is wrong when you teach him "when you drop a ball it moves to the sky". Because it's observable. That's why everyone knows it falls towards the ground.

[Carnifex]

Again, to be able to prove that something is wrong, you must prove something else is right. The problem with that is that you will be using the "science" that you have learned from someone else to prove something wrong, while proving something else right.

You will be basing your findings on "proof" you came up with based on someone elses "rules". These rules are the problem, just because you can prove these "rules" are correct does not mean they are correct, you proved they were correct based on the information that you were taught which does not mean it is correct.

Just like you can say 1 + 1 = 2 and that is always true. That is not always true. 1 + 1 = 2 because that is what we were taught based on someone at some point in time deciding that 1 + 1 = 2.

Do you follow. Sorry I am not very good at showing my point though written words because I suck at grammer and spelling.

You are so wrong.
It is not that someone thought, hey 1 + 1 = 2.

We recently discovered every organism can count from the moment they exist. It's not something you learn from others, it's there, you need no explanation, because it's fact.

You don't "learn" science or evolution. It is not based on our own findings. It's just there. Science uses the results to see how it all began.

People just fear evolution and science and don't want to know the truth. They just joke about it and say well its still based on rules made up by humans. Science is NOT made up by humans. It's using the available resources to find out more about it.

That being said. I have already proven god does not exist because humans are smart enough to understand how evolution works and pretty much know how the universe was created.
There are still things we cannot explain, but then again, humans have only been on this planet for such a short time.

[Tdog]

1+1=2 is always true. No matter what.




Incorrect, the child would know it is wrong when you teach him "when you drop a ball it moves to the sky". Because it's observable. That's why everyone knows it falls towards the ground.

It falls towards the ground because we call ground ground, not because ground is ground.

If you taught a child from day one that everything was different then we currently know, then said child would believe he/she was correct and others were wrong.

1 + 1 = 2 because that is what we were taught. Not because it is true.

1 + 1 = 4 could be correct if that is what we were taught.

Again everything that we know to be "fact" or "truth" today, was at some point in time someone elses opinion and over time become common knowledge.

What you need to understand is that we are taught these things, just because we are taught something does not make it 100% correct.

You must allow yourself to see outside of the normal realm and see things for what they are, Yes 1 + 1 = 2 always today, I agree 100% but that still does not change the fact that someone at some point said it to be so.

The human brain forces us to define everything reguardless if we fully understand it or not.

Just like I DROVE a CAR to WORK today. I say that because that is what I was taught.
Now if someone taught you that these things meant different things then I might say.
I Car a Work to Drove today.

[Osirus]

Actually the mechanism for evolution has yet to be proven, but the act has been proven.

Microbiologists have long since observed evolution in bacteria cultures, and recent article showed a surprising result. Two separate basteria samples stored in two separate storage units under different conditions, both developing the same mutation but at different times.

I would suggest that this is the predisposed life cycle of the tested bacteria. the example you provided lies in opposition of the theory of evolution, which relies heavily upon condition driven results as proof.

Microbiologists are still looking into this one but the current theory is that something happened to the samples much earlier in their life before they were separate that then manifests itself as evolution later on. i.e. a genetic mutation.

a handful of straws.


Evolution has been proven repeatedly ...

has it?
how has evolution been proven beyond reasonable doubt?

[holychicken]

It falls towards the ground because we call ground ground, not because ground is ground.
What the hell does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Whatever the fuck we chose to call it is what it would fall to.

1 + 1 = 2 because that is what we were taught. Not because it is true.

1 + 1 = 4 could be correct if that is what we were taught.
You are sort of on the right track with the 1 + 1 = 2, but you are confused. The a priori thing of math is that 1 = 1. Basically, that some number equals itself. All of the math is based off of that assumption. . .which is hardly an assumption and, if it wasn't made, there would be no such thing as math, which is something many animals, not just humans, have some understanding of.

Again everything that we know to be "fact" or "truth" today, was at some point in time someone elses opinion and over time become common knowledge.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.

What you need to understand is that we are taught these things, just because we are taught something does not make it 100% correct.
True, just because we are taught something does not mean it is correct. No one is saying otherwise.

You must allow yourself to see outside of the normal realm and see things for what they are, Yes 1 + 1 = 2 always today, I agree 100% but that still does not change the fact that someone at some point said it to be so.

The human brain forces us to define everything reguardless if we fully understand it or not.
I think you have gotten yourself confused.

[Tdog]

What the hell does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Whatever the fuck we chose to call it is what it would fall to.


You are sort of on the right track with the 1 + 1 = 2, but you are confused. The a priori thing of math is that 1 = 1. Basically, that some number equals itself. All of the math is based off of that assumption. . .which is hardly an assumption and, if it wasn't made, there would be no such thing as math, which is something many animals, not just humans, have some understanding of.


You really have no idea what you are talking about.


True, just because we are taught something does not mean it is correct. No one is saying otherwise.


I think you have gotten yourself confused.

Look its pretty simple.

If you are blind and deaf and nobody has taugh you anything. You walk out of your house and run into a "tree", you would know what it was and your brain would force you to label it something.

Same goes for anything. If you throw an object up and it falls back down, it would not lead you to believe there was a thing called gravity that is causing this object to fall back to earth, your brain would come up with a way to explain what you just saw. Now your brain and my brain and Joe blows brain might all come up with a different way to explain it.

Now think of that on a large scale and you have our "facts" and "truths" we know today.

Science is exactly that, we observe something and then explain why that something happen. Now depending on the who observed it, we may get different opinions explaining it. None are more right then the others because it is based on each persons observation.

[jonyak]

Look its pretty simple.

If you are blind and deaf and nobody has taugh you anything. You walk out of your house and run into a "tree", you would know what it was and your brain would force you to label it something.

Same goes for anything. If you throw an object up and it falls back down, it would not lead you to believe there was a thing called gravity that is causing this object to fall back to earth, your brain would come up with a way to explain what you just saw. Now your brain and my brain and Joe blows brain might all come up with a different way to explain it.

Now think of that on a large scale and you have our "facts" and "truths" we know today.

Science is exactly that, we observe something and then explain why that something happen. Now depending on the who observed it, we may get different opinions explaining it. None are more right then the others because it is based on each persons observation.

despite the fact that we only know things because we named them. they would still be there doing the things they do if we didn't name them.

[Teutates]

It falls towards the ground because we call ground ground, not because ground is ground.

If you taught a child from day one that everything was different then we currently know, then said child would believe he/she was correct and others were wrong.

1 + 1 = 2 because that is what we were taught. Not because it is true.

1 + 1 = 4 could be correct if that is what we were taught.

Again everything that we know to be "fact" or "truth" today, was at some point in time someone elses opinion and over time become common knowledge.

What you need to understand is that we are taught these things, just because we are taught something does not make it 100% correct.

You must allow yourself to see outside of the normal realm and see things for what they are, Yes 1 + 1 = 2 always today, I agree 100% but that still does not change the fact that someone at some point said it to be so.

The human brain forces us to define everything reguardless if we fully understand it or not.



You're retarded. I think you made this argument aswell several months ago.

The name of things such as ground doesn't matter. It will always refer to the same thing even if I call it azezgqrsdsf.

4 would mean 2 in that example. Because it's observable, and observation are all the same for every human.


Just like I DROVE a CAR to WORK today. I say that because that is what I was taught.
Now if someone taught you that these things meant different things then I might say.
I Car a Work to Drove today.
You're hopeless.

[Tdog]

despite the fact that we only know things because we named them. they would still be there doing the things they do if we didn't name them.

Maybe, then again maybe not.

yes they might still be doing their thing but the way we define the way they work could be wrong is what I am getting at.

I am using the name part as an example of how the human brain works.

Yes their is some force that is pulling us back down to the ground but maybe gravity works in some other way then we currently think.

All I am saying is just because something is said to be that way, does not make it so, it just means that is what we are lead to believe though "others" observations.

[jonyak]

Maybe, then again maybe not.

:bang:

[Tdog]

:bang:

Sorry I had to finish some work, please re read the post.

[jonyak]

Sorry I had to finish some work, please re read the post.

what about people like me who have a background in physics and use it every day?

I know certain things to be true, sure they may not be exactly as we explain them but our models for how they work, well.... work.

[Yantheman]

Maybe, then again maybe not.

yes they might still be doing their thing but the way we define the way they work could be wrong is what I am getting at.

I am using the name part as an example of how the human brain works.

Yes their is some force that is pulling us back down to the ground but maybe gravity works in some other way then we currently think.

All I am saying is just because something is said to be that way, does not make it so, it just means that is what we are lead to believe though "others" observations.

Haha youre objecting to our DEFINITIONS , but youre ignoring the (more important) REALITIES.

[Tdog]

Haha youre objecting to our DEFINITIONS , but youre ignoring the (more important) REALITIES.

Define Reality?

Look all I am saying is that nothing is 100% correct, its all subject to a margin of error because it is human made and we all know humans is not perfect.






You need to understand one thing, I do not reject science, nor do I reject religion. I try to look at everything without any bais one way or the other, that is a very hard concept for some people accept and I understand that.

[Vertigo Vain]

Ok, i add some details.

In times of Soviet Union one russian proffession tested and observed the fact that actualy, most humans see things completely differently - in terms of color.

Its not just that people consider colors with different brightness and tones - its that depending on the individual development of eye - the light entering it is filtered differently thus resulting in different spectre of light reaching nerves and sending signals to the brain.

So a 2 persons looking at green object can both identify it as green. However for one person the object is in blue and for other it might be red in terms of WHAT the brain represents because the initial data recived from the eye is different.

BUT, both of them would name the object green. And when asked to find another green object would point it right.

The answer is that representation of the substance - in this case color, is relatively constant. Blue object stays always blue, and green object might be just slightly less blue in your eye - but all people call ig Green, and all people can identify named object as green. Thus the consistency of observation, the object color is identified correctly.

In this case Green is not a phisical color caused by specific light spectre, but set of qualities that ALL green objects share and ALL people can observe. And the main reason its identified so - it never changes color. All green objects would have same qualities as one green object, thus all people would call them Green.

There are the cases where color perception is broken, and people see and identify colors realy differently from others - however its a disorder of the eye i.e. brain - because such persons identify objects falsely or cant differ specific colors. Its not about that they werent told how the object was called, its about that they cant percieve a specific quality of the object - resulting in not being able to differ some colors, or inconsestent perception of colors: where one green object seen as green and anothe green object (percived by everyone else) as red and not differed visualy from red object all other percieve.

Thus, the color identefication is based not on knowledge how the colors are called, not on perception of actual "color" (as we all see them differently in the brain) but on fact the object having that color have ALWAYS same quality and ALWAYS are percieved of that color (no matter if its realy red or green for you).

Same as with gravitation, science e.t.c.

Its here not because people were told to believe so and call things so, but because people percieve same things always the same way - prowing the things actualy exist and defining observable laws by wich things work.

Stone droped down drops down every time, for everyone who observes it at this moment. There is no differensation of perspective - noone can tell the stone didnt fell and could interact with it like if it where still in the air. And thus, despide different real observation of the event - we can be sure the event was real.

This whole point is what is science - reality that can be percieved equaly by EVERYONE and that can be acted upon: the stone fell and you can pick it from the ground. If you denie that, you cant pick it up because for you its still in the air.

Its fundamentaly wrong to try to compare FAITH - wich is belief in something, and Science - wich is existance of something.

[Tdog]

what about people like me who have a background in physics and use it every day?

I know certain things to be true, sure they may not be exactly as we explain them but our models for how they work, well.... work.

And that is great that your models work still does not mean they are correct without any Doubt.

What about people like you? Its great you are into physics, that is something that I never really got into nor do I completely understand it.

[jonyak]

And that is great that your models work still does not mean they are correct without any Doubt.

What about people like you? Its great you are into physics, that is something that I never really got into nor do I completely understand it.

hence why you don't understand science.

I was trying to convey that I work with this science every day and it always works the same and according to our models that were made to represent these basic physical workings of the universe.

[holychicken]

Define Reality?

Look all I am saying is that nothing is 100% correct, its all subject to a margin of error because it is human made and we all know humans is not perfect.

You need to understand one thing, I do not reject science, nor do I reject religion. I try to look at everything without any bais one way or the other, that is a very hard concept for some people accept and I understand that.
I am very philosophical by nature, relatively intelligent, and strongly curious and inquisitive.

It isn't the concept of being "unbiased" when you look at something that is hard to understand, it is the gibberish you are spewing that is hard to understand. In fact, I am pretty sure it makes no sense or you are just not very good at expressing yourself.

[holychicken]

And that is great that your models work still does not mean they are correct without any Doubt.
Again, this is one of the big things that separates science from religion. Science states that theories MUST be disprovable and it has a built in mechanism for changing if something completely unexpected were to happen tomorrow.

Religious faith does not have this at all. It states that it is what we say it is and you have to believe in that. While if you don't believe in the science, you can go out to prove it wrong.

[LoD_BlackJack]

to me, this argument always boils down to the fact that as humans, we don't have the capacity to understand what god is or isn't. we are nowhere near explaining where matter came from, what existed pre-matter, and if it were "created", what created the creator.

INFINITY = <3

[Vertigo Vain]

Then there is no point in believing in him either. Because as human you cant understand what he wants from you either.

[Dirty l3um]

You mean top left.

And not believing in evolution at this point is almost as foolish as not believing world is round.

Lets think about this for a minuite, although the theory COULD explain life, it fails. The reason being, the lack of evidence (http://health.bubble.ro/human_genetic_diseases.php) pointing toward additions to the DNA attributed to a POSITIVE change. When a positive change is not seen but assumed, it is no longer science. You cannot base "science" on the assumption that something happens. There must be viable evidence to support the theory, in this case, the theory that there are positive consequences to additional chromosomes.

[Vehementi]

Lets think about this for a minuite, although the theory COULD explain life, it fails. The reason being, the lack of evidence (http://health.bubble.ro/human_genetic_diseases.php) pointing toward additions to the DNA attributed to a POSITIVE change. When a positive change is not seen but assumed, it is no longer science. You cannot base "science" on the assumption that something happens. There must be viable evidence to support the theory, in this case, the theory that there are positive consequences to additional chromosomes.

As earlier posted, watch this, it will clear up your confusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Edit: also read Selfish Gene, it deals more with what you're literally talking about, but I don't think that's what you mean.

[Carnifex]

Lets think about this for a minuite, although the theory COULD explain life, it fails. The reason being, the lack of evidence (http://health.bubble.ro/human_genetic_diseases.php) pointing toward additions to the DNA attributed to a POSITIVE change. When a positive change is not seen but assumed, it is no longer science. You cannot base "science" on the assumption that something happens. There must be viable evidence to support the theory, in this case, the theory that there are positive consequences to additional chromosomes.

Why do you think science lacks this so called evidence ? We have the technology, we have the knowledge, its ethics and laws that keep us from developing.

The example you are using is totally different from science. DNA research is very new and also very hard to execute, due to what I said above.
I work with DNA every day and let me tell you it's not hard at all to genetically modify anything.
We could even create our own babies with the properties you like to have.

We can make models and we can be 100% sure it will be the same on a larger scale, just because it works exactly the same !
We don't need "evidence" to be sure, we can create our own evidence.

[Dirty l3um]

As earlier posted, watch this, it will clear up your confusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Edit: also read Selfish Gene, it deals more with what you're literally talking about, but I don't think that's what you mean.

lol a cdk007 vid and a richard dawkins book. please if your going to give evidence, do just that. when you listen to someones opinion about science its not the same as the facts. richard dawkins has some outrageous opinions about science but that does not make his opinions science...

[Aragoni]

Only infidels believe in a god. ;)

[Dirty l3um]

Why do you think science lacks this so called evidence ? We have the technology, we have the knowledge, its ethics and laws that keep us from developing.

The example you are using is totally different from science. DNA research is very new and also very hard to execute, due to what I said above.
I work with DNA every day and let me tell you it's not hard at all to genetically modify anything.
We could even create our own babies with the properties you like to have.

We can make models and we can be 100% sure it will be the same on a larger scale, just because it works exactly the same !
We don't need "evidence" to be sure, we can create our own evidence.

im sure you do work with DNA everyday, just like every other person on forumfall, everyone here has PhD's didnt anyone ever tell you? And coincidentally they are all in biochemistry, fancy that?

Im not going to claim that im some doctor, i am an undergraduate engineering student, im 2 years from my bachelors.

What i can tell you is additions to chromosomes in the gene pool has not had a positive effect, on the offspring. Evolution relies heavily on the idea that mutations bring about additons to the gene pool that will help the organism but, ironically enough they are called mutations for a reason. Please if you have documented scientific evidence disputing this i would love nothing more than to read about it.

my position here is based on the facts, not some "doctors" conjecture about what the facts mean, because his conjecture is nothing more than his opinion. Now if the facts come to the table i will evaluate them for what they are, weeding through the conjectures and taking out the empirical evidence

[Vehementi]

Can you reiterate exactly what it is you think there is no evidence for?

[holychicken]

im sure you do work with DNA everyday, just like every other person on forumfall, everyone here has PhD's didnt anyone ever tell you? And coincidentally they are all in biochemistry, fancy that?

Im not going to claim that im some doctor, i am an undergraduate engineering student, im 2 years from my bachelors.

What i can tell you is additions to chromosomes in the gene pool has not had a positive effect, on the offspring. Evolution relies heavily on the idea that mutations bring about additons to the gene pool that will help the organism but, ironically enough they are called mutations for a reason. Please if you have documented scientific evidence disputing this i would love nothing more than to read about it.

my position here is based on the facts, not some "doctors" conjecture about what the facts mean, because his conjecture is nothing more than his opinion. Now if the facts come to the table i will evaluate them for what they are, weeding through the conjectures and taking out the empirical evidence
Again, evolution claims that mutations CAN bring about positive changes, not that they necessarily will.

And mutation only has a negative connotation in your mind. Mutation != bad. Mutations CAN be bad, but not necessarily.

Haven't you ever seen X-Men?

(that last line was a joke, BTW, relax)

The fact of the matter is that we have seen increases in the number of chromosomes and have seen those extra chromosomes be harmless. On top of that, there is a lot of other evidence that points to there being ancestors of modern creatures with a different number of chromosomes.

There is a lot of evidence that this has happened. Just because we haven't observed it being beneficial in the 50 years we have been paying attention to it does not really bring into question something that we know to take, at the shortest amount, thousands of years.

[Attau]

Seeing as how evolution has been able to evolve abilities to observe and take advantage of all the different properties of the universe (eyes for incoming light waves, receptors for tasting physical properties, and ears for hearing sound waves)... do you think life will eventually evolve beyond the physical spectrum and become man's definition god-like?








I would settle for silver surfer powers though.

[Dirty l3um]

Again, evolution claims that mutations CAN bring about positive changes, not that they necessarily will.

And mutation only has a negative connotation in your mind. Mutation != bad. Mutations CAN be bad, but not necessarily.

Haven't you ever seen X-Men?

(that last line was a joke, BTW, relax)

The fact of the matter is that we have seen increases in the number of chromosomes and have seen those extra chromosomes be harmless. On top of that, there is a lot of other evidence that points to there being ancestors of modern creatures with a different number of chromosomes.

There is a lot of evidence that this has happened. Just because we haven't observed it being beneficial in the 50 years we have been paying attention to it does not really bring into question something that we know to take, at the shortest amount, thousands of years.


Okay, please link to some evidence of what you are claiming to be true. HERE (http://health.bubble.ro/human_genetic_diseases.php) is evidence that genetic mutations are not beneficial. please show me evidence that they can be beneficial by means of bringing about new information to the gene pool.

[Vehementi]

Okay, please link to some evidence of what you are claiming to be true. HERE (http://health.bubble.ro/human_genetic_diseases.php) is evidence that genetic mutations are not beneficial. please show me evidence that they can be beneficial by means of bringing about new information to the gene pool.

From wikipedia on "Mutations"

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Beneficial_mutations

[Carnifex]

im sure you do work with DNA everyday, just like every other person on forumfall, everyone here has PhD's didnt anyone ever tell you? And coincidentally they are all in biochemistry, fancy that?

FYI, I'm in 3rd year for bachelor Bio-Informatics, not that you care, but don't try to be a smart ass.

Ever heard of SNP's ? They tell us alot about evolution.

I'm being tought rock solid FACTS. Not someone's opinion. You are an idiot if you really believe so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_nucleotide_polymorphism
Here is your evidence.

[Heartnet~]

Lets think about this for a minuite, although the theory COULD explain life, it fails. The reason being, the lack of evidence (http://health.bubble.ro/human_genetic_diseases.php) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

I thought everyone learned this in HS. Life can be created by somewhat simple chemical reactions and volts. No design or intelligence required. And we can even recreate it.

[Dirty l3um]

From wikipedia on "Mutations"

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Beneficial_mutations

CCR5 apparently plays a role in mediating resistance to West Nile virus infection in humans, as CCR5-Δ32 individuals have shown to be disproportionately at higher risk of West Nile virus in studies,[5] indicating that not all of the functions of CCR5 may be compensated by other receptors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#CCR5-.CE.9432

Once again you are taking away from the gene pool, not adding new information.

[Vehementi]

CCR5 apparently plays a role in mediating resistance to West Nile virus infection in humans, as CCR5-Δ32 individuals have shown to be disproportionately at higher risk of West Nile virus in studies,[5] indicating that not all of the functions of CCR5 may be compensated by other receptors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#CCR5-.CE.9432

Once again you are taking away from the gene pool, not adding new information.

So specifically, you want an insertion mutation that is beneficial? Just want to be clear before I go a-lookin'.

[Dirty l3um]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

I thought everyone learned this in HS. Life can be created by somewhat simple chemical reactions and volts. No design or intelligence required. And we can even recreate it.

where is the oxygen? If you read up on this experiment it could not have been conducted with o2. Now what happens when you take o2 out of the atmosphere? no more oxygen = no more ozone layer. do you have any idea how easily this radiation would destroy the amino acid chains...

look into it, 95% of the byproducts of this experiment were not beneficial to the system and the experiment was highly biased




edit: Alright fellas, ive gotta head off to work, ill check back with this thread in about.... 8 hours, maybe sooner

[holychicken]

Okay, please link to some evidence of what you are claiming to be true. HERE (http://health.bubble.ro/human_genetic_diseases.php) is evidence that genetic mutations are not beneficial. please show me evidence that they can be beneficial by means of bringing about new information to the gene pool.
What about my post did you not understand?

Again, the lack of an evidence of an extra chromosome in humans in the 50 years we have been tracking such stuff is not very argument that something that happens over thousands to millions over years doesn't happen.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) is evidence of common descent. Many of the animals for which we have proof of common descent have differing numbers of chromosomes. This is pretty strong evidence that chromosomes do get added/subtracted over time and can be beneficial.

[Carnifex]

"Benign mutations are all around us. It's the basic principle of evolution! How humans evolved to become so intelligent, how animals adapt to their environment, and how plants have evolved from simple organisms to autotrophs have all depended on mutations to get here. And then there are random mutations that affect the non-coding regions of DNA or replace a coding section with a redundant codon or affect an intron. They don't do anything bad...but they also have no effect on us at all."

It is a bit outdated, because we now know the so called "non-coded" regions, or "repeats" do have some meaning, although we are not very sure what yet.
The repeat sections are being researched at the moment, but we only knew this until a year ago.

Anyway, my research has to do with SNP's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_nucleotide_polymorphism

[chimp]

im sure you do work with DNA everyday, just like every other person on forumfall, everyone here has PhD's didnt anyone ever tell you? And coincidentally they are all in biochemistry, fancy that?

Im not going to claim that im some doctor, i am an undergraduate engineering student, im 2 years from my bachelors.

What i can tell you is additions to chromosomes in the gene pool has not had a positive effect, on the offspring. Evolution relies heavily on the idea that mutations bring about additons to the gene pool that will help the organism but, ironically enough they are called mutations for a reason. Please if you have documented scientific evidence disputing this i would love nothing more than to read about it.

my position here is based on the facts, not some "doctors" conjecture about what the facts mean, because his conjecture is nothing more than his opinion. Now if the facts come to the table i will evaluate them for what they are, weeding through the conjectures and taking out the empirical evidence

Every time a forumfall thread about evolution busts out, I either miss the start of it until its ten pages in or its just full of people obviously trolling.

so first off, your a first year engineering student. That means you have been at university what, a few months now? Maybe almost a year?

Second, im at uni and whilst I dont hold a phd, im not a stupid faggot and im doing my BSc in genetics. Thats right, the degree most specifically suited to talk about evolution. If you want to try and call me out as bullshit then go ahead, try.

Third - these threads always suck balls, because everyone doesnt really understand what they are talking about. People base their arguments about completely misinformed ideas about evolution, and its so frustrating to have to wade through your bullshit just to try and make a point.

So now to shoot down your argument in flames.

"What i can tell you is additions to chromosomes in the gene pool has not had a positive effect, on the offspring."

What the fucking HELL are you waffling on about? This is such nonsense. Your saying that any change to a chromosome doesnt result in net benefit for that particular organism, therefore evolution is completely wrong?

Guess what, your totally wrong. A large part of evolution is actually genetic drift, the idea that a genome that is not under any selective pressure will still mutate at a specific rate. This is due to a variety of factors, involving errors in DNA replication and the rate at which purines and pyridimines(sp) may decay. From memory I think either cytosine or thymine has a habit of decaying to uracil as an example. Also DNA incurs damage from pyridimine photodimers causing chromosomal breakages (sunlight).

What evolution is saying, is that every time one of these random mutations occurs, if it has ANY net effect on the fitness of that organism, either positive or negative, it has a greater chance to either be fixed or lost from the gene pool.

Mutations arent additions to the gene pool, they are just changes. Most are highly deleterious, and result in a reduced fitness for an organism, hence that organism has reduced fitness and reduced probability to pass on its genes, reduced probability that the negative fitness genotype will be fixed within the population. BUT when a positive change does occur, its much more likely to stay.

[Vehementi]

Example: Nylonase

Another clear example of a beneficial mutation is the bacteria that have evolved to eat nylon-6. [5][6]
Evidently this is a beneficial variation, since it allows the colonization of a new niche; and obviously the mutation can't have existed since some imaginary act of fiat creation 6000 years ago, since bacteria with this variation can only feed on nylon-6, and nylon was only invented in 1935.
One interesting aspect of this mutation is that it consists of the insertion of a single nucleotide, causing a frame-shift, so that the protein being coded for, after the frame-shift, is nothing like the protein coded for in the wild type: the mutation is small in terms of nucleotides, but makes a radical change to the protein.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Beneficial_Mutations

Is this one invalid too? There is at least one other example of an insertion mutation on that page. Let me know if those are all invalid and I'll find more.

[Dirty l3um]

What about my post did you not understand?

Again, the lack of an evidence of an extra chromosome in humans in the 50 years we have been tracking such stuff is not very argument that something that happens over thousands to millions over years doesn't happen.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) is evidence of common descent. Many of the animals for which we have proof of common descent have differing numbers of chromosomes. This is pretty strong evidence that chromosomes do get added/subtracted over time and can be beneficial.

please look into your evidence more closely... After seeing the horse evolution on that page i could not take the rest seriously. This is exactly why wikipedia is not a viable resource. If you look into that horse evolution you will find that there is no rhyme or reason to the amount of ribs each horse has. the supposed evolution of this horse does not coincide with the number of ribs that the horse has.

The only evidence here is that many different animals have common structures. I will not argue with that because the animals have common structures. God creating everything would have the same outcome. if you were writing a program would you not use the same function to perform the same task? or would you re invent the wheel?

The only evidence is that animals share common structures. That is fine, but the conjecture that the ONLY reason behind the common structure of animals could be evolution is not science, its opinion.

now once again i have to go to work, im going to be late if i do not leave now, i will respond to the posts that are worthwhile later. (i know how forumfall is, i will get ZERG'ed while im gone and come back to like 30 posts that are no more than belligerent name calling)

the only FACT is that animals share traits

[Nasty]

Evo or GTFO, thread closed.

[5%Luck]

I dont Understand How You all seem to take religion so out of context just to disprove it! i mean really wtf are you trying to say? If ya want to take one book of religion and chafe at you disappointment in life fine but to pull one sentence out of eons of knowledge and throw it in the face of a logical string as a "proof" your doing it wrong!

Faith is more of a way to use your brain correctly than anything science has so far "evolved" Think about it, positive thinking was born of the wings of religion not science! Whats science have to offer on this subject Phhht.. pharmacological anti-depressants that cause suicidal tendency! With that said the proof is in the pudding here as any logical statement backed by hard "empirically provable" evidence has got to be true. Short of that I lack faith or in other word happiness. Which mode of thinking is more beneficial to the individual?

Skepticism!

[Dirty l3um]

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Beneficial_Mutations

Is this one invalid too? There is at least one other example of an insertion mutation on that page. Let me know if those are all invalid and I'll find more.

I was not arguing that adaptations do not occur but that the additional DNA in the gene pool has not been observed to be beneficial. Please show evidence that 48 chromosomes instead of 46 would be beneficial to the human and how. (or a like example) That is my argument, not that adaptations do not happen.

adaptations != evolution

[holychicken]

chimp,

I think what he is talking about is that different organism of common decent have varying number of chromosomes. . . not just that chromosomes mutate.

[Dwhap]

It's a possibility that a genetic abnormality caused some apes to turn into humans, but you can't be sure about it.


Lol

[Dwhap]

FYI, I'm in 3rd year for bachelor Bio-Informatics, not that you care, but don't try to be a smart ass.

Ever heard of SNP's ? They tell us alot about evolution.

I'm being tought rock solid FACTS. Not someone's opinion. You are an idiot if you really believe so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_nucleotide_polymorphism
Here is your evidence.

I leaned long ago to NEVER argue with an idiot (creationist). They will beat you down to their level and beat you with experience....

[holychicken]

The only evidence is that animals share common structures. That is fine, but the conjecture that the ONLY reason behind the common structure of animals could be evolution is not science, its opinion.
So, it IS evidence of it, never-the-less. However, I suggest taking your own advice and read it more carefully because there is a whole lot more evidence just on that page (not to mention the numerous references found at the bottom) than "animals share common structures"

the only FACT is that animals share traits
Wrong, that is not the only fact. There is a lot of geographic evidence that also suggests the same thing.

Sure, one could always say "god made it look that way" and if he did, he certainly wanted to make it look like evolution is the real deal.

[5%Luck]

It is un-arguable in the fact that to prove something "empirically" one must witness the thing being speculated. And no one lives more that 3 maybe 4 generations!

Bones! In the fossil record for dinosaurs we have proof of them evolving but still that doesn't disprove religion for me!

God has all science! He set forth the wonders and chaos both. To leave us with a world that teaches us through striving for comfort a way of living that provides that. Meaning religion is right on the mark! Do it the hard way. Once your comfortable with that the debate is over!

Jaded! A scientifically driven society produces jaded peoples that can not find comfort in their lazy boys(fluffy chairs) in front of a giant screen T.V.

There is no scientific proof that states anything in a way to set forth a morel version of society. Religion does! If we strive for pure science we all become uncomfortable as each adjacent would be set up to perfection as to its self rather that its relation to its neighbor!

[jonyak]

It is un-arguable in the fact that to prove something "empirically" one must witness the thing being speculated. And no one lives more that 3 maybe 4 generations!

Bones! In the fossil record for dinosaurs we have proof of them evolving but still that doesn't disprove religion for me!

God has all science! He set forth the wonders and chaos both. To leave us with a world that teaches us through striving for comfort a way of living that provides that. Meaning religion is right on the mark! Do it the hard way. Once your comfortable with that the debate is over!

Jaded! A scientifically driven society produces jaded peoples that can not find comfort in their lazy boys(fluffy chairs) in front of a giant screen T.V.

There is no scientific proof that states anything in a way to set forth a morel version of society. Religion does! If we strive for pure science we all become uncomfortable as each adjacent would be set up to perfection as to its self rather that its relation to its neighbor!

thanks for coming out.

[Carnifex]

It is un-arguable in the fact that to prove something "empirically" one must witness the thing being speculated. And no one lives more that 3 maybe 4 generations!

Bones! In the fossil record for dinosaurs we have proof of them evolving but still that doesn't disprove religion for me!

God has all science! He set forth the wonders and chaos both. To leave us with a world that teaches us through striving for comfort a way of living that provides that. Meaning religion is right on the mark! Do it the hard way. Once your comfortable with that the debate is over!

Jaded! A scientifically driven society produces jaded peoples that can not find comfort in their lazy boys(fluffy chairs) in front of a giant screen T.V.

There is no scientific proof that states anything in a way to set forth a morel version of society. Religion does! If we strive for pure science we all become uncomfortable as each adjacent would be set up to perfection as to its self rather that its relation to its neighbor!

If we didn't have people who don't believe in god we would have still lived in fucking caves, or were exterminated a long time ago.
THAT is a FACT.

[Vessol]

I don't believe in evolution or creationism. You are all just a figment of my imagination. I call it Vessolism.

[holychicken]

If we didn't have people who don't believe in god we would have still lived in fucking caves, or were exterminated a long time ago.
THAT is a FACT.
Religion does not preclude science.

[Lorth]

evolution is it. Ill see you in hell

[Beorg]

For life? No I think it fails to explain that. It explains the variety of life and biological economy quite well though.


I do believe this. There are many holes in the theory that life came from rocks, too many for me to believe right now. As for the afterlife, I believe there is one--there's too much evidence to ignore it. Since energy cannot simply stop, there must be some sort of place our "energy" (souls if you will) go after we die.

[Osirus]

genuinely curious here; what does the number of chromozones in an organism have have to do with anything? what is it proof of?

[holychicken]

genuinely curious here; what does the number of chromozones in an organism have have to do with anything? what is it proof of?
For evolution to be true, the addition and or subtraction of chromosomes from one species to the next must be possible. Like we share a common ancestor with a mouse, yet we have a different number of chromosomes.

[chimp]

I was not arguing that adaptations do not occur but that the additional DNA in the gene pool has not been observed to be beneficial. Please show evidence that 48 chromosomes instead of 46 would be beneficial to the human and how. (or a like example) That is my argument, not that adaptations do not happen.

adaptations != evolution

You have completly missed the point.

First off, 48 chromosomes doesnt MEAN more DNA than 46 you idiot, chromsomes can be of highly variable size, you want to look at the Mbp instead.

Second, due to the C value paradox, organism complexity is NOT DENOTED BY GENOME SIZE. The vast majority of the human genome is useless, noncoding, or unknown functioning regions.

Your trying to argue a moot point.

[Osirus]

For evolution to be true, the addition and or subtraction of chromosomes from one species to the next must be possible. Like we share a common ancestor with a mouse, yet we have a different number of chromosomes.


so if a mouse had 44 chromozones, an evolutionist would suggest the mouse is our common ancestor?

what if two very different species has the same number of chromozones?

[holychicken]

so if a mouse had 44 chromozones, an evolutionist would suggest the mouse is our common ancestor?
Uh, no. And there was nothing in what I said that would even remotely suggest this.

what if two very different species has the same number of chromozones?
What if?

Again, the point is that a common ancestor of us and the mouse had a number of chromosomes that had to be different from either the number we have or the number the mouse has. So, the addition and or subtraction of chromosomes must happen for evolution, as we know it, to have happened.

[Vehementi]

For evolution to be true, the addition and or subtraction of chromosomes from one species to the next must be possible. Like we share a common ancestor with a mouse, yet we have a different number of chromosomes.

This very thing was shown to be true with the chimp thing. We have 1 fewer chromosome, see around 35 minutes in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

This outlines it, sorry for the length.

First off, 48 chromosomes doesnt MEAN more DNA than 46 you idiot, chromsomes can be of highly variable size, you want to look at the Mbp instead.

And the above link proves this. We didn't lose or gain any genetic material when our chromosomes fused.

[Osirus]

Uh, no. And there was nothing in what I said that would even remotely suggest this.

just wanted to be clear.


What if?

Again, the point is that a common ancestor of us and the mouse had a number of chromosomes that had to be different from either the number we have or the number the mouse has. So, the addition and or subtraction of chromosomes must happen for evolution, as we know it, to have happened.

so you believe a common ancestor between a mouse and man, could have had only 2 chromozones, or perhaps up to 400 chromozones, at one time in history??

[Vehementi]

^ Yes, that's possible, since as the other guy said above, chromosomes don't mean more or less DNA. In my video link above, we see how two of our chromosomes simply fused together (end to end). We end up wiht "one fewer chromosome" but the same amount of genetic information. Hence this whole argument about OMG, BIGGER NUMBER OF CHORMOSOMES is moot.

so if a mouse had 44 chromozones, an evolutionist would suggest the mouse is our common ancestor?

what if two very different species has the same number of chromozones?

You misread. If we share a common ancestor with mice, and mice and humans have different numbers of chromosomes, then it must be possible for us to "lose" or "gain" chromosomes through mutation, otherwise the theory would break down.

[Beorg]

just wanted to be clear.




so you believe a common ancestor between a mouse and man, could have had only 2 chromozones, or perhaps up to 400 chromozones, at one time in history??

Possibly.

[Vehementi]

Also, I would like a peer-reviewed source for this claim:

If you look into that horse evolution you will find that there is no rhyme or reason to the amount of ribs each horse has. the supposed evolution of this horse does not coincide with the number of ribs that the horse has.


Specifically I want to see how the source explains that this actually debunks the proposed models and sequences of horse evolution.

Also it would be appreciated if you could go and correct the wikipedia page about this with the sources you post, so that the article is more accurate.

edit: jesus christ I hope you're not going off bullshit like this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/horse.asp

[Osirus]

^ Yes, that's possible, since as the other guy said above, chromosomes don't mean more or less DNA. In my video link above, we see how two of our chromosomes simply fused together (end to end). We end up wiht "one fewer chromosome" but the same amount of genetic information. Hence this whole argument about OMG, BIGGER NUMBER OF CHORMOSOMES is moot.



You misread. If we share a common ancestor with mice, and mice and humans have different numbers of chromosomes, then it must be possible for us to "lose" or "gain" chromosomes through mutation, otherwise the theory would break down.


and what information does a chromozone carry? and what is the relationship between DNA and chromozones in the grand scheme of distinguishing one species from another?

[Vehementi]

and what information does a chromozone carry? and what is the relationship between DNA and chromozones in the grand scheme of distinguishing one species from another?

IANAB, but chromosomes are the containers for DNA basically. The number of chromosomes is technically irrelevant (see above) and it's the actual genetic information that is important. I suppose you could have everything in one super long chromosome?

[sorros]

evolution is true. God does not exist. If so, the Titans chained him up, since he's sure as hell not helping the world right now.

Evolution may have some holes, but religion/supernatural reasons have far more.

[Beorg]

evolution is true. God does not exist. If so, the Titans chained him up, since he's sure as hell not helping the world right now.

Evolution may have some holes, but religion/supernatural reasons have far more.


I think to make such a statement is absurd for any man. We're mere humans, we can't possibly know this. Even with valid scientific theories we still cannot be sure about anything in this vast universe and its beyond places.

[Vehementi]

I think to make such a statement is absurd for any man. We're mere humans, we can't possibly know this. Even with valid scientific theories we still cannot be sure about anything in this vast universe and its beyond places.

Considering the evidence to believe in a god is the amount as the evidence to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (none whatsoever), there is no point in entertaining the idea in the first place.

Have you ever lost a relative? Have you suspected that the planet Mars shot an invisible death ray and killed that person and then covered it up to make it seem like a natural death (or if your relative was unfortunately murdered, the death ray would have also been a mind control ray that brainwashed the murderer into killing your relative, and then gave him a convincing explanation of why he would have done this; also, if your relative died since Pluto stopped being considered a planet by the scientific community, it was Pluto that shot the death ray, not Mars)? If not, you should. Because you can't prove it didn't happen; fuck, you can't even comprehend how it could happen, so saying it didn't happen is absurd for any man.

[Xtra-Medium]

inst it true that humans and apes can breed? makes sense that we came from something similar

[holychicken]

inst it true that humans and apes can breed? makes sense that we came from something similar
No doubt you have tried this.

[Haart Maystorm]

... I still don't see why evolution and creationism can't get along...

[holychicken]

... I still don't see why evolution and creationism can't get along...
Uh, maybe it is because one says god created people 6000 or so years ago and the other says that humans come from a long line of mutation and selection stretching back millions or billions of years.

[Haart Maystorm]

Uh, maybe it is because one says god created people 6000 or so years ago and the other says that humans come from a long line of mutation and selection stretching back millions or billions of years.

No, the idea of creationism has been tainted by people who feel the urge to rebel against science. It is fully possible that some significant being created some stuff, gave it the potential to evolve, got some popcorn, sat back, and watched.

[VidarDf]

no:)

[Helgeran]

no:)
You're an idiot, that's all I have to add to this thread. Anyone who doubts this should read the archives. It doesn't even matter that evolution is true, your ignorant way to think about the "question" proves that you're dumb no matter where you apply your thinking.

[no-one]

Evolution is only a mechanism form making higher life forms. It is the nature of the universe that drives evolution. How and for what purpose are really the questions.

[strayfe]

Actually the mechanism for evolution has yet to be proven, but the act has been proven.

Microbiologists have long since observed evolution in bacteria cultures, and recent article showed a surprising result. Two separate basteria samples stored in two separate storage units under different conditions, both developing the same mutation but at different times.

Microbiologists are still looking into this one but the current theory is that something happened to the samples much earlier in their life before they were separate that then manifests itself as evolution later on. i.e. a genetic mutation.

I am not a complete believer in the term of survival of the fittest as this implies that only physical elements as desirable. But we all know that intelligence is worth a mountain worth more than any amount of physical advantage.
Amen, after all, who needs to be buff and powerful when you can weild a firearm. Even arangatangs would get arangablasted. Although I dont think "survival of the fittest" exactly implies "phyisical attributes in general" I think survival of the fittest is meaning "fit to survive" Not "finesse enough" Fit deriving from "fit in" or "got the right stuff" Which can imply to anything such as Brains, wits, strength, and overall ability to avoid danger or successfully overcome it and move on, Whether it be personal conflict, or a survival of a species.

[alfaroverall]

Evolution is almost certainly the mechanism behind our existence. What this implies regarding divinity's possible role in our existence is debatable, and I never really bother to take a firm position in that matter since any firm position would have fallacious reasoning within it.

[Helgeran]

Evolution is almost certainly the mechanism behind our existence. What this implies regarding divinity's possible role in our existence is debatable, and I never really bother to take a firm position in that matter since any firm position would have fallacious reasoning within it.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1295#comic

Red button is truest imo.

[Gibsnag]

No, the idea of creationism has been tainted by people who feel the urge to rebel against science. It is fully possible that some significant being created some stuff, gave it the potential to evolve, got some popcorn, sat back, and watched.

Words change. I can't do anything about the fact that the term "Hacker" doesn't mean anything like what it did originally, you can't do anything about the fact that Creationist is now synonymous with "smacktard".

The modern definition (within a scientific context at least, if not a Theological one) of Creationist is that of a young earth creationist.

Evolution is only a mechanism form making higher life forms. It is the nature of the universe that drives evolution. How and for what purpose are really the questions.

No, Natural Selection is a mechanism by which populations change over time to suit their environment. Evolution is the result of Natural Selection. Purpose has nothing to do with Evolution, the universe doesn't owe us some kind of purpose in life.


I am not a complete believer in the term of survival of the fittest as this implies that only physical elements as desirable. But we all know that intelligence is worth a mountain worth more than any amount of physical advantage.


FFS. "Survival of the fittest" means the fittest for the current environment and doesn't mean only physical attributes. If the most adaptable and intelligent organism is better suited for its environment (as we are) then it is the fittest.

[Vehementi]

Wait, what?

Actually the mechanism for evolution has yet to be proven, but the act has been proven

Where is the mystery? What "mechanism" are we unaware of? We know with extreme detail how things reproduce and how mutations come about, what kind of mutations they are, etc. In the case of terrestrial life, the "mechanism" for evolution is reproduction and natural selection.

[Osirus]

quoted from http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/micro.htm



Traditionally, microevolution is defined as evolution within a species. That is microevolution involves small changes that do not create new species. On the other hand, macroevolution creates new species. With these definitions, the pictures across the top and down the right side of this page are both examples of macroevolution. This web site will show that while the variation across the top can be explained by natural selection, genetic drift and mutations the variation down the side cannot. In light of this observation, a better definition for microevolution and macroevolution is required. This web site will use the following definitions:

Microevolution are changes in the gene pool that do not create new genes. That is every gene in the new gene pool has a similar function and purpose in the original gene pool. A gene that is altered by mutations, but maintains its original function and purpose is called an allele. Alleles are different variations of the same gene. Microevolution creates new alleles. It does not create new genes. Macroevolution: changes in the gene pool that create new genes. Since new organs and structures require new genes, any evolutionary transition that involves a new structure or organ is an example of macroevolution.

The variation in the large cats across the top does not require new genes. Therefore, this variation is an example of microevolution. Traditional Darwinian principles can explain this variation. On the other hand, the variation down the right side requires new genes. This variation is an example of macroevolution. This web site will show that genetic drift and natural selection operating on the variation created by mutations cannot create new genes. Thus, the theory of evolution cannot explain the origin of new organs and structures, and evolution does not explain the origin of complexity.

Why is the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution so important?


Experiments designed to test evolution always test microevolution. If macroevolution is possible it is too slow to be observed. So while the experimental evidence supporting microevolution is undeniable, the same cannot be said for macroevolution.

Scientists have theorised that given enough time microevolution can explain macroevolution. The logic behind this extrapolation rests on the traditional definitions for macroevolution and microevolution. New genes are not required for macroevolution as long as such evolution is limited to closely related species (for example - tigers and lions). In this example, the processes behind microevolution and macroevolution are identical and extending microevolution to explain macroevolution makes perfect sense.

On the other hand, this extrapolation is very hard to justify when microevolution is extended to explain the origin of new organs or structures. Since the evolution of new organs and structures requires new genes, microevolution can only be extended to explain macroevolution if the processes responsible for new alleles can also create new genes. Creating a new gene with a new function is clearly different than optimising a gene without changing its function (creating a new allele). So the first and foremost question at hand is can the processes that create new alleles also create new genes? Existing genes are not free to evolve into new genes.

anyway, I wonder if my local library has a copy of the Selfish Gene.

[Xzi]

The theory of evolution can easily coexist with the theory of creationism. But I guess it's just a lot more fun to argue, eh?

[no-one]

No, Natural Selection is a mechanism by which populations change over time to suit their environment. Evolution is the result of Natural Selection. Purpose has nothing to do with Evolution, the universe doesn't owe us some kind of purpose in life.


The scope of your argument is to small and, the universe does not owe us a purpose in life but, it has a purpose all the same.

[VidarDf]

You're an idiot, that's all I have to add to this thread. Anyone who doubts this should read the archives. It doesn't even matter that evolution is true, your ignorant way to think about the "question" proves that you're dumb no matter where you apply your thinking.

Jesus I can’t just say no and not get into mutations and ID? I have to blah blah all the same shit thats been said countless times on these forums? Us humans are all powerful, but as a whole we are crumbling.. look around you jackoff. We cant cure AIDS, but we know how we came into existence? HA. The brightest minds not to long ago had no idea we revolved around the sun. The brightest minds not to long ago thought the world was flat... They called the rest idiots too. You’re the ignorant fuck in my book. I will believe what i want. Proof is a relative term.

[Helgeran]

Jesus I can’t just say no and not get into mutations and ID? I have to blah blah all the same shit thats been said countless times on these forums? Us humans are all powerful, but as a whole we are crumbling.. look around you jackoff. We cant cure AIDS, but we know how we came into existence? HA. The brightest minds not to long ago had no idea we revolved around the sun. The brightest minds not to long ago thought the world was flat... They called the rest idiots too. You’re the ignorant fuck in my book. I will believe what i want. Proof is a relative term.
Appearantly you can't, I haven't actually read this thread but I remember your arguments on this subject from like a year ago. Also this post just proves me right.

[VidarDf]

Appearantly you can't, I haven't actually read this thread but I remember your arguments on this subject from like a year ago. Also this post just proves me right.


excuse me.. i thought that LAST post was your only contribution to this thread? fucking liar!

[Gibsnag]

quoted from http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/micro.htm

[/FONT]

anyway, I wonder if my local library has a copy of the Selfish Gene.

Wow. Those bolded sections are unbelievably incorrect. Like... whoa. Genes cannot become new genes? Seriously, I want some of whatever the guy who wrote that was on.

The scope of your argument is to small and, the universe does not owe us a purpose in life but, it has a purpose all the same.

You're making an assumption that the universe has some kind of cosmic intelligence capable of giving a purpose to an process which neither provides evidence of an overall purpose or has any need of a purpose to explain it.

The brightest minds not to long ago thought the world was flat...

Incorrect. The Greeks knew that the earth was round. In fact, it is incredibly hard to not realise that the earth is at the very least, not flat.

[Spankytwo]

Dawkins>>>>Dead guys.


/thread

[PrimalSign]

Traditionally, microevolution is defined as evolution within a species. That is microevolution involves small changes that do not create new species. On the other hand, macroevolution creates new species.

2 Problems in the first sentence.

1) Microevolution is typically defined as a change of species, whereas Macroevolution is anything Genus and above. This is a definition based off of species groups defined by...

2) Systematics
Our modern categorization of all life is done through this form of Taxonomy. What we call a species is determined by its evolutionary path and its ability to reproduce (with fertile offspring) in the wild. Therefore, it's completely absurd to claim species cannot evolve from on another when that's how we've come to categorize them as species in the first place. I mean... it's simply ludicrous to believe an arbitrary classification we were the ones to place has any bearing on reality.

Even the definition we use has problems... some dogs and wolves are still able to breed and regularly produce fertile offspring. Another even more blatant example showing how unimportant the term species is: certain mule producing couplings (note: between two separate species) can rarely produce fertile offspring (if the born mule is female), whereas most couplings produce infertile mules. This is evolution in action. Eventually two organisms will grow far enough apart that they will become categorized as separate species.

Anti-evolutionism targets the ignorance of people and pretends it has a scientific basis to discredit the process of evolution. However, we've reached the point that the only way we can explain life is by recognizing evolution as a guiding factor. If we suddenly removed evolution from the equation, our entire understanding of biology will be destroyed. Nothing makes sense without it. Anti-evolutionism is nothing more than an attempt to destroy our basis for scientific understanding in the field of life.

[Helgeran]

excuse me.. i thought that LAST post was your only contribution to this thread? fucking liar!
You're slippery as a sly and oiled eel with a plan.

[Gibsnag]

Micro vs Macro Evolution is a manufactured distinction, the only difference between the two definitions is timescale. But since Creationists think the earth is 6k years old they don't understand time on the x10^6 let alone x10^9 scale.

You're slippery as a sly and oiled eel with a plan.

If he is a creationist, what do you expect? They have to bend their mind around living in the modern world whilst disbelieving in some of the most core aspects of modern science. I'm surprised that their brains can compartmentalise to that extent.

[Septus]

quoted from http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/micro.htm

That's the most pathetic source I have ever seen. Let me show you the BASE url: http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/index2.htm

Here's some of the pro-creation gibberish they spew:

External sources of energy are required to create upward organisation. Evolutionists more often than not, suggest that the sun provided energy for development of life of Earth. However, scientists question about the sun being the sole source of energy provided and can the simple addition of energy transform a dead planet into a live one?

An example of this is a living plant. Taking the sun's energy and transforming it can temporarily increase order and grow. However, if there is really a powerful Evolutionary force at work in this universe and if the open system in the Earth makes a significant difference, how come the sun's energy cannot make a dead plant come alive?

So when a dead plant receives energy from the sun, instead of reorganising itself in an upward manner, it tends to disintegrate instead. And therefore, creationists remain adamant about this issue.

Are you shitting me?

[jordanleroux]

*shakes head*

Yes...

Yes...

And only some of us are evolved, most are still dumb apes. :)

Racist!!!

[5%Luck]

It is un-arguable in the fact that to prove something "empirically" one must witness the thing being speculated. And no one lives more that 3 maybe 4 generations!

Bones! In the fossil record for dinosaurs we have proof of them evolving but still that doesn't disprove religion for me!

God has all science! He set forth the wonders and chaos both. To leave us with a world that teaches us through striving for comfort a way of living that provides that. Meaning religion is right on the mark! Do it the hard way. Once your comfortable with that the debate is over!

Jaded! A scientifically driven society produces jaded peoples that can not find comfort in their lazy boys(fluffy chairs) in front of a giant screen T.V.

There is no scientific proof that states anything in a way to set forth a morel version of society. Religion does! If we strive for pure science we all become uncomfortable as each adjacent would be set up to perfection as to its self rather that its relation to its neighbor!

[Elicas]

I just wanted to provide a few interesting reads on evolution compiled by a friend of mine.

Observed instances of speciation. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5)
Neanderthal genome sequencing (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061116083223.htm)
Humans and Neanderthals shared Earth (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1450949.htm)
Transitional fossil FAQ (http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm)
Transitional fossils of hominid skulls (http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html)
The Origin of Whales (http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/)
List of transitional fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
Hundreds of human genes still evolving (http://www.livescience.com/health/060308_human_evolve.html)
Human and ape chromosomes (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)
Ken Miller talks about the evolution of blood clotting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU)
Ken Miller on Whale Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY)
Ken Miller on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs)
Early Man Couldn't "Stomach" Milk (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6397001.stm)
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html)
Miller-Urey Experiment (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)
The Flagellum Unspun (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html)
NASA: Nitrogen, lightning key to early life on Earth (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/earth_archaean_010716.html)
NASA: Scientists Propose New Theory of Early Life on Earth (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2001/01_54AR.html)
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District )
Purpose of Appendix Believed Found (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html)
Germs Get 'Badder' in Space (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3644131&page=1)
Common Ancestor of All Apes Walked Upright (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300838,00.html)
Something Fishy About Human Fingers (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303701,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Neanderthals Had Language Gene Identical to Ours (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303282,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Early Humans used Makeup, Ate Seafood (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302816,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Chimps as Irrationally Possessive as Humans (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301512,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Earth's Oxygen-Rich Atmosphere Older Than Thought (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301512,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Climate Change Didn't Kill Neanderthals (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296709,00.html)
Early Humans Could Walk, Not Run (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296605,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
'Baby Talk' Universally Understood (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294444,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Men With 'Caveman' Faces More Attractive to Women (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294134,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Skull Suggests Two Early Human Species Existed at the Same Time (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292572,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Intelligent Design on Trial (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/)
Are Mutations Harmful? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html)
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)
Missing Link Between Fish and Land Animals (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
Precambrian Fossils (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Precambrian-Fossils.htm)
Permian-Triassic Extinction Event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#Terrestrial_pl ants)
Oldest **** Sapiens Found, Experts Say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#Terrestrial_pl ants)
Neanderthals Not our Ancestors, DNA Study Suggests (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0514_030514_neandertalDNA.html)
Cannibalism Normal For Early Humans? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html)
Neanderthals Had Highly Capable Hands, Study Suggests (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0326_030326_neanderthalthumb.html)
Did Neanderthals Lack Smarts to Survive? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0306_030306_neanderthal.html)
Java Skull Raises Questions about Human Origins (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0227_030227_javaskull.html)
First Humans in Australia Dated to 50,000 Years Ago (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0224_030224_mungoman.html)
1.8 Million Year-Old Hominid Jaw Found (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0220_030220_olduvaijaw.html)
When Did "Modern Behavior" in Humans Arise? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0220_030220_humanorigins2.html)
Fossil Implies Our Early Kin Lived in Trees (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0220_030220_humanorigins2.html)
Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period of Human Origins (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0710_020710_chadskull.html)
Study Supports Idea That Primates, Dinosaurs Co-Existed (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0418_020418_primates.html)
Evolution of the Horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse)
BBC: Evolution of Man (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/)
Darwin's Finches Evolving Fast (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1688507.htm)
Velociraptor Had Feathers (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm)
Speciation (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html)
Understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)
Human Evolution - Skeletal Details (http://www.amonline.net.au/human_evolution/skeleton/more_info.htm)
First Foundational Falsehood of Creationism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY)
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html)

[Septus]

Jaded! A scientifically driven society produces jaded peoples that can not find comfort in their lazy boys(fluffy chairs) in front of a giant screen T.V.

One of the PROBLEMS with society is that people spend their time not educating themselves, sitting in their lazy boy, yet still hold and exercise baseless opinions (especially around election time).


There is no scientific proof that states anything in a way to set forth a morel version of society. Religion does! If we strive for pure science we all become uncomfortable as each adjacent would be set up to perfection as to its self rather that its relation to its neighbor!

Morality does not require an overseer to tell you you've been bad. You can logically discuss the morality of any given act (or the degrees OF morality).

[Donny]

Yes, Of course I believe in evolution.

Only really religious or really ignorant people wouldn't believe in it.

[no-one]

You're making an assumption that the universe has some kind of cosmic intelligence capable of giving a purpose to an process which neither provides evidence of an overall purpose or has any need of a purpose to explain it.



The nature of the universe is more like a system. It need not have sentient intelligence. as far as providing or explaining evidence of its self that just doesn't happen. If we want evidence we will have to find it and recognize it for what it is ourselves.

[Vehementi]

Morality does not require an overseer to tell you you've been bad. You can logically discuss the morality of any given act (or the degrees OF morality).

You can only discuss morality once you make certain assumptions (e.g. "life should be preserved" "stealing is bad" etc.) :/

[IthroZada]

Evolution ftw

[Gloomrender]

I just wanted to provide a few interesting reads on evolution compiled by a friend of mine.

Observed instances of speciation. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5)
Neanderthal genome sequencing (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061116083223.htm)
Humans and Neanderthals shared Earth (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1450949.htm)
Transitional fossil FAQ (http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm)
Transitional fossils of hominid skulls (http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html)
The Origin of Whales (http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/)
List of transitional fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
Hundreds of human genes still evolving (http://www.livescience.com/health/060308_human_evolve.html)
Human and ape chromosomes (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)
Ken Miller talks about the evolution of blood clotting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU)
Ken Miller on Whale Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY)
Ken Miller on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs)
Early Man Couldn't "Stomach" Milk (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6397001.stm)
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html)
Miller-Urey Experiment (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)
The Flagellum Unspun (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html)
NASA: Nitrogen, lightning key to early life on Earth (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/earth_archaean_010716.html)
NASA: Scientists Propose New Theory of Early Life on Earth (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2001/01_54AR.html)
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District )
Purpose of Appendix Believed Found (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html)
Germs Get 'Badder' in Space (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3644131&page=1)
Common Ancestor of All Apes Walked Upright (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300838,00.html)
Something Fishy About Human Fingers (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303701,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Neanderthals Had Language Gene Identical to Ours (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303282,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Early Humans used Makeup, Ate Seafood (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302816,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Chimps as Irrationally Possessive as Humans (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301512,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Earth's Oxygen-Rich Atmosphere Older Than Thought (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301512,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Climate Change Didn't Kill Neanderthals (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296709,00.html)
Early Humans Could Walk, Not Run (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296605,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
'Baby Talk' Universally Understood (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294444,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Men With 'Caveman' Faces More Attractive to Women (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294134,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Skull Suggests Two Early Human Species Existed at the Same Time (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292572,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
Intelligent Design on Trial (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/)
Are Mutations Harmful? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html)
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)
Missing Link Between Fish and Land Animals (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
Precambrian Fossils (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Precambrian-Fossils.htm)
Permian-Triassic Extinction Event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#Terrestrial_pl ants)
Oldest **** Sapiens Found, Experts Say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#Terrestrial_pl ants)
Neanderthals Not our Ancestors, DNA Study Suggests (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0514_030514_neandertalDNA.html)
Cannibalism Normal For Early Humans? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html)
Neanderthals Had Highly Capable Hands, Study Suggests (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0326_030326_neanderthalthumb.html)
Did Neanderthals Lack Smarts to Survive? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0306_030306_neanderthal.html)
Java Skull Raises Questions about Human Origins (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0227_030227_javaskull.html)
First Humans in Australia Dated to 50,000 Years Ago (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0224_030224_mungoman.html)
1.8 Million Year-Old Hominid Jaw Found (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0220_030220_olduvaijaw.html)
When Did "Modern Behavior" in Humans Arise? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0220_030220_humanorigins2.html)
Fossil Implies Our Early Kin Lived in Trees (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0220_030220_humanorigins2.html)
Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period of Human Origins (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0710_020710_chadskull.html)
Study Supports Idea That Primates, Dinosaurs Co-Existed (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0418_020418_primates.html)
Evolution of the Horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse)
BBC: Evolution of Man (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/)
Darwin's Finches Evolving Fast (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1688507.htm)
Velociraptor Had Feathers (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm)
Speciation (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html)
Understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)
Human Evolution - Skeletal Details (http://www.amonline.net.au/human_evolution/skeleton/more_info.htm)
First Foundational Falsehood of Creationism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY)
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html)

You sir, win this thread.

[DR.NUMBERS]

Holy crap! 11 pages? Looks like someone took the bait.

First, you fail at making polls. Second, next time you try to troll at least do a better job. (oh and that last link for bible warning stickers was vaguely amusing at least)


I think you owe me something now.

[PrimalSign]

Holy crap! 11 pages? Looks like someone took the bait.

Taking credit for the natural course of religious threads? Puh-lease.

Your efforts were weak, this thread belonged to forumfall as soon as it was posted.

[Owachi]

Yes, Of course I believe in evolution.

Only really religious or really ignorant people wouldn't believe in it.

+1

You bible pounding morons.

[Woodiwood]

I just want to see how many hell-fire bound unbelievers there are here so I'm going to ask whether or not you believe evolution is the most probable explanation for man's existence.



Evolution is the most probable explanation for mmo's existence.

First the amobea arrived, they thrived. then they found a spot and set up camp. they hunted the wildlife, trained wolves for pets. then they lauched raiding parties throughout Agon.

The world is flat dumbass, haven't you ever played an mmo !.

[Osirus]

Wow. Those bolded sections are unbelievably incorrect. Like... whoa. Genes cannot become new genes? Seriously, I want some of whatever the guy who wrote that was on.


it's called, Ohno's Dilema.

Are you shitting me?

I wouldn't shit you if you were my favorite turd ... and you are my favorite turd. I was more concerned with the source of the information found on the link I provided; which was found in the form of Ohno's Dilema(Susumu Ohno).

for the record, I'm aware that evolution exists ... it is the foundation of our understanding of biology, I just don't believe that humans evolved from apes, or fish.

[Skree]

/here we go againNot me. This is a close to this 1 as I'm going to get.

Skree

[PrimalSign]

for the record, I'm aware that evolution exists ... it is the foundation of our understanding of biology, I just don't believe that humans evolved from apes, or fish.

Technically, we didn't evolve from apes or fish since we only share a common ancestor. An ancestor way way back in the case of fish.

[DR.NUMBERS]

Taking credit for the natural course of religious threads? Puh-lease.

Your efforts were weak, this thread belonged to forumfall as soon as it was posted.

lol... I sense truth in what you say :(

[Osirus]

Technically, we didn't evolve from apes or fish since we only share a common ancestor. An ancestor way way back in the case of fish.

if humans, apes, and fish share a common ancestor ... I'm wondering if it is the Spaghetti Monster people keep talking about.

the way I see it; if common elements(figuratively speaking) are necessary to sustain carbon based life forms, and all carbon based life forms share some, or all of those elements, that could just as easily be evidence of intelligent design, as it is for evolution.

I can't look at the world outside, in observing it's natural schronicity, and suggest that it wasn't orchestrated by some form of intelligence.

bees/insects pollenate fruit trees, rodents and other animals are instrumental in perpetuating the life cycle of trees. those trees provide food and oxygen(evaporation contributes as well), which animals/humans depend upon to breath. in return, we exhale carbon dioxide, blah blah blah 'selfish gene' blah blah.

there are 1000's(guesstimate) of cake recipes; each one of them is going to have common ingredients with another, with some ingredients being common in every recipe. each cake will vary in taste, from one to the next, even if one baker created them all.

aside from that bakers dozen nonsense ... there's always the possibility that human's aren't indigenous to earth; Noah's Ark could have been a fucking spaceship that was used to escape a planet in peril. so we came to this place, an old planet yet, still in it's infancy. hell, we probably killed the dinosaurs upon our arrival, and then sent those poor neanderthall bastards into extinction. wtf.

[Septus]

You can only discuss morality once you make certain assumptions (e.g. "life should be preserved" "stealing is bad" etc.) :/

You don't have to make those assumptions; in a logical discussion, even those assumptions would be up for discussion. For example, why and when should life be preserved? What is the net effect of stealing on society?

The only real assumption you would have to make is the goal for your society (ie. net happiness? net progress? net fairness? all of the above?), which I think humanity shares for the most part.


I wouldn't shit you if you were my favorite turd ... and you are my favorite turd. I was more concerned with the source of the information found on the link I provided; which was found in the form of Ohno's Dilema(Susumu Ohno).

for the record, I'm aware that evolution exists ... it is the foundation of our understanding of biology, I just don't believe that humans evolved from apes, or fish.

The link you posted had nothing to do with Ohno's Dilemma. Keep using google to selectively support your gibberish though. It shows.

Your original link was talking about how genetic mutation does not account for new alleles. Patently false.

Ohno's dilemma talks about the likelihood of genetic mutation AND divergence beign simultaneously sustained through natural selection. And models have already been presented which address this question.

[Septus]

if humans, apes, and fish share a common ancestor ... I'm wondering if it is the Spaghetti Monster people keep talking about.

*incoherent gibberish*

Okay you've fallen off the fucking deep end. What is it with creationists always resorting to retarded cake/clock/equally-retarded-inanimate-object analogies.

holy shit, humans have mouths to eat food. If there's no God we wouldn't have mouths!!! INTELLIGENT DESIGN. No retard, if we didn't have mouths, natural selection would have fucking killed us off.

[Osirus]

The link you posted had nothing to do with Ohno's Dilemma. Keep using google to selectively support your gibberish though. It shows.

Your original link was talking about how genetic mutation does not account for new alleles. Patently false.

Ohno's dilemma talks about the likelihood of genetic mutation AND divergence beign simultaneously sustained through natural selection. And models have already been presented which address this question.

what did you do? you fucking googled his name and read the abstract. stfu you pompus ape boy.

[Osirus]

Okay you've fallen off the fucking deep end. What is it with creationists always resorting to retarded cake/clock/equally-retarded-inanimate-object analogies.

holy shit, humans have mouths to eat food. If there's no God we wouldn't have mouths!!! INTELLIGENT DESIGN. No retard, if we didn't have mouths, natural selection would have fucking killed us off.


lol, you're funny Septic, always ... ALWAYS resorting to childish name calling.

just remember Septus, homosexuality IS a choice ... that you don't have to make.

[tallefred]

just remember Septus, homosexuality IS a choice ... that you don't have to make.

Um.... no. It's not.

[Drizden!]

I just want to see how many hell-fire bound unbelievers there are here so I'm going to ask whether or not you believe evolution is the most probable explanation for man's existence.

No I do not and not just for religious reasons either.

[Beorg]

if humans, apes, and fish share a common ancestor ... I'm wondering if it is the Spaghetti Monster people keep talking about.

the way I see it; if common elements(figuratively speaking) are necessary to sustain carbon based life forms, and all carbon based life forms share some, or all of those elements, that could just as easily be evidence of intelligent design, as it is for evolution.

I can't look at the world outside, in observing it's natural schronicity, and suggest that it wasn't orchestrated by some form of intelligence.

bees/insects pollenate fruit trees, rodents and other animals are instrumental in perpetuating the life cycle of trees. those trees provide food and oxygen(evaporation contributes as well), which animals/humans depend upon to breath. in return, we exhale carbon dioxide, blah blah blah 'selfish gene' blah blah.

there are 1000's(guesstimate) of cake recipes; each one of them is going to have common ingredients with another, with some ingredients being common in every recipe. each cake will vary in taste, from one to the next, even if one baker created them all.

aside from that bakers dozen nonsense ... there's always the possibility that human's aren't indigenous to earth; Noah's Ark could have been a fucking spaceship that was used to escape a planet in peril. so we came to this place, an old planet yet, still in it's infancy. hell, we probably killed the dinosaurs upon our arrival, and then sent those poor neanderthall bastards into extinction. wtf.

I didn't see much wrong with your post besides your last paragraph. There is evidence of humans on earth far before Noah's Ark was supposed to take place. This story is probably a Hebrew version of a Sumerian folk tale that takes place during a flood. A farmer (named Noah) and his family probably used a barge and took all the animals in his world (I.e. the valley he probably lived in) and loaded them onto his barge for trade in another village. A flood probably took place when he was drifting about, and he most likely ended up in another village instead of the mountainside of Ararat.

Oh, you spelled Neanderthal wrong, and most humans you see today most likely are a blend of Cro Magnon, **** Egaster, Neanderthal and **** Sapiens.

This is a serious post answering a sarcastic statement by Beorg.

[Osirus]

I didn't see much wrong with your post besides your last paragraph. There is evidence of humans on earth far before Noah's Ark was supposed to take place. This story is probably a Hebrew version of a Sumerian folk tale that takes place during a flood. A farmer (named Noah) and his family probably used a barge and took all the animals in his world (I.e. the valley he probably lived in) and loaded them onto his barge for trade in another village. A flood probably took place when he was drifting about, and he most likely ended up in another village instead of the mountainside of Ararat.

Oh, you spelled Neanderthal wrong, and most humans you see today most likely are a blend of Cro Magnon, **** Egaster, Neanderthal and **** Sapiens.

This is a serious post answering a sarcastic statement by Beorg.


thanks Beorg ... for getting the sarcasm ... and the spelling correction; can't believe no one corrected my spelling of chromozones, apes indeed.

Tallefred, I'm afraid you're wrong ... a man(woman) might find other men(women) attractive, but he(she) never HAS to cross that line; homosexuality is a choice.

[Vehementi]

You don't have to make those assumptions; in a logical discussion, even those assumptions would be up for discussion. For example, why and when should life be preserved? What is the net effect of stealing on society?

The only real assumption you would have to make is the goal for your society (ie. net happiness? net progress? net fairness? all of the above?), which I think humanity shares for the most part.


That was actually my point, I just used murder etc. as an example. Less proximately, you have to choose whether you want more happiness or more wealth or increased physical robustness and intelligence of offspring, but those, too, are assumptions that we're just making up. What is so important to the universe about the molecules on this thing we call a planet that happen to form things we call genes? Etc.

[tallefred]

Tallefred, I'm afraid you're wrong ... a man(woman) might find other men(women) attractive, but he(she) never HAS to cross that line; homosexuality is a choice.

Ah ok, I misunderstood what you meant.

[alfaroverall]

Tallefred, I'm afraid you're wrong ... a man(woman) might find other men(women) attractive, but he(she) never HAS to cross that line; homosexuality is a choice.
By that logic, so is heterosexuality. That doesn't make your idea completely stupid, but it's there.

[Osirus]

By that logic, so is heterosexuality. That doesn't make your idea completely stupid, but it's there.

some people stay virgins, this much is true; my logic is based on natural law. whether you believe in evolution, or creation; homosexuality is an abnormality in either case.

[Vehementi]

No it's not. It does not DIRECTLY provide offspring, but it has various advantages, such as giving you access to relationships with more people, in which you learn about more personality types, making you more likely to be able to deal with an actual mate.

[Elemancer]

Order from disorder inherently implies that we could have beings that aren't biological.

Once this hypothesis is proven, I will 100% back evolution.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a creationist nor intelligent designer. There's a good bit of evidence that evolution took place to conceive us. However, the biggest beef I have is the timeline proposed. Taking a biological system of single cells and somehow equating this to an ordered system of cells is tough for me.

Think of it like this:

I have a system that can replicate itself EXACTLY as is, as long as all the parts are there and in the right places. HOWEVER, it is possible for any one part to not be in any of the one right places. In nearly 99.9999999% of engineered systems caught in this position, the system would outright fail to replicate, now suppose this system is NOT engineered, but randomly formed. Translate this gap for me, please....is it the error in biological systems that allow molecules to organize into sub-cells, then to cells? If that's the case, how the hell did those molecules come to be at the right spacial proximity with the necessary energy, position and momentum? Random chance? How many random chances do you suppose that could happen?

From there, a proto cell can be formed that can take the outside energy to decrease entropy....can someone link a study that confirms a non-deliberate observation of atoms/molcules yields a system that can convert outside energy to decreased entropy? I'm sure there are, but it's hard to find those articles.

I'm always one that subscribes to the philosophy of "the devil is in the details"...and I'm always open to logical evolutionary arguements.

However, studying micro and macro economics...and even quantum mechanics, I've been supposing maybe we cannot necessarily link the large with even the various magnitudes of existance...But a quantum physicist would call be a pessimist.

[Osirus]

No it's not. It does not DIRECTLY provide offspring, but it has various advantages, such as giving you access to relationships with more people, in which you learn about more personality types, making you more likely to be able to deal with an actual mate.

okay, if you say so.

I'm going on the notion that humanity cannot continue without heterosexuality. so by the natural laws(proverbial) of evolution, heterosexuality is the natural state by which humanity is perpetuated from generation to generation; thus, homosexuality is abnormal in that regard.

any man or woman can have gainful relationship with another of the same gender, without ever involving homosexual activity; I don't see any advantages in homosexuality over heterosexuality.

and while we're on the topic ... where does humans needing relationships, fit into the grand scheme of evolution? how are relationships important in evolution theory?

[Vehementi]

Your attempt to change what I said into something I am not arguing for and then shoot it down as a straw man fallacy has been seen through and has failed. Please try again when you want to address what I said.

[Vehementi]

Order from disorder inherently implies that we could have beings that aren't biological.

Once this hypothesis is proven, I will 100% back evolution.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a creationist nor intelligent designer. There's a good bit of evidence that evolution took place to conceive us. However, the biggest beef I have is the timeline proposed. Taking a biological system of single cells and somehow equating this to an ordered system of cells is tough for me.

Think of it like this:

I have a system that can replicate itself EXACTLY as is, as long as all the parts are there and in the right places. HOWEVER, it is possible for any one part to not be in any of the one right places. In nearly 99.9999999% of engineered systems caught in this position, the system would outright fail to replicate, now suppose this system is NOT engineered, but randomly formed. Translate this gap for me, please....is it the error in biological systems that allow molecules to organize into sub-cells, then to cells? If that's the case, how the hell did those molecules come to be at the right spacial proximity with the necessary energy, position and momentum? Random chance? How many random chances do you suppose that could happen?

From there, a proto cell can be formed that can take the outside energy to decrease entropy....can someone link a study that confirms a non-deliberate observation of atoms/molcules yields a system that can convert outside energy to decreased entropy? I'm sure there are, but it's hard to find those articles.

I'm always one that subscribes to the philosophy of "the devil is in the details"...and I'm always open to logical evolutionary arguements.

However, studying micro and macro economics...and even quantum mechanics, I've been supposing maybe we cannot necessarily link the large with even the various magnitudes of existance...But a quantum physicist would call be a pessimist.

If you think abiogenisis and evolution have anything at all to do with a bunch of shit randomly falling together, then you are just misinformed. Check out these links (in addition to the slew on the other page) for abiogenesis and evolution models/examples respectively:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

edit: and no offense, but using rationalizations that you come up with yourself to say "nah, that scientific theory supported by most of the scientific community with thousands of peer reviewed papers by people who are the leaders of their fields doesn't quite sound right, I have a beef with this one aspect that every one of those smart people have overlooked, so I'm not convinced" is pretty shortsighted.

[Septus]

some people stay virgins, this much is true; my logic is based on natural law. whether you believe in evolution, or creation; homosexuality is an abnormality in either case.

You can be a heterosexual and a virgin genius.


As for our other convo: I'll take your tangent as admission of guilt.

[Osirus]

Your attempt to change what I said into something I am not arguing for and then shoot it down as a straw man fallacy has been seen through and has failed. Please try again when you want to address what I said.


with the exceptions of your mate comment, and the offspring comment, I addressed every one of your points; you just didn't like my rebuttal.

[Osirus]

You can be a heterosexual and a virgin genius.

nothing my post indicates otherwise


As for our other convo: I'll take your tangent as admission of guilt.

you caught me, I'm guilty of suggesting you're a homosexual ape boy.

oh wait, you're talking about the linkage?? if you would have clicked on the 'next page' arrow on the page, you would have seen where from I drew the association with Ohno's Dilemma.

and I know you only read the abstract before you made that comment.

[Septus]

Tallefred, I'm afraid you're wrong ... a man(woman) might find other men(women) attractive, but he(she) never HAS to cross that line; homosexuality is a choice.

By that definition, you can't be a heterosexual virgin.

[Vehementi]

with the exceptions of your mate comment, and the offspring comment, I addressed every one of your points; you just didn't like my rebuttal.

No you didn't. Your post was off-topic. Nowhere in my post did I suggest, for example, that heterosexuality is not needed for humanity's survival, or that homosexuality is a way to reproduce. Saying that homosexuality is not a way to reproduce (to paraphrase you) is not related to my post.

If you can't see that having a sexual relationship is different from having a non-sexual relationship, then obviously you won't be able to see any advantages of doing so, so you can't speak to that point either.

Being better at relationships = being a more fit mate.

[Osirus]

No you didn't. Your post was off-topic. Nowhere in my post did I suggest, for example, that heterosexuality is not needed for humanity's survival, or that homosexuality is a way to reproduce. Saying that homosexuality is not a way to reproduce (to paraphrase you) is not related to my post.

If you can't see that having a sexual relationship is different from having a non-sexual relationship, then obviously you won't be able to see any advantages of doing so, so you can't speak to that point either.

Being better at relationships = being a more fit mate.

wow ... yes, I did.

I think maybe english isn't your native language? because you misinterpreted my post as if it was written in chinese pig-latin.

on to the new topic at hand...

I have friends I fuck, and friends I don't fuck ... the friends I don't fuck, are males; the friends I do fuck, are females. so I know the difference between sexual relationships, and non-sexual relationships; I just prefer to go about it in a heterosexual way. now, if you happen to be on the other side of the fence, then I certainly apologize if I offended you(or anyone ... even you Septus), but I certainly stand firm on my assertion that homosexuality is abnormal.

By that definition, you can't be a heterosexual virgin.

what kind of logic did you use to come to that conclusion? I know you two are in cahoots ... hanging out in #CAP.

I'm going to bed now ... have a good one.

[Septus]

what kind of logic did you use to come to that conclusion?

You said "although they may be attracted to men, they don't have to [have sex] with them; [thus] homosexuality is a CHOICE."

So you're now defining homosexuality not as the attraction, but the act of sex. So by your (retarded) definition, you cannot be a heterosexual virgin.

[verlox2]

The Book of Genesis does a rather terrible job of explaining the creation of the world unless you understand hebrew.

Try replacing every mention of Adam with the word "man" and things get a little more clear. Then take everything said before Noah with a grain of salt, cause it makes no freaking sense.

But do I believe evolution is real or whatever? Not sure, don't really care. I'm here now, that's what matters.

[Osirus]

You said "although they may be attracted to men, they don't have to [have sex] with them; [thus] homosexuality is a CHOICE."

So you're now defining homosexuality not as the attraction, but the act of sex. So by your (retarded) definition, you cannot be a heterosexual virgin.

I still don't see how you're making that connection, so I'm going to stoop to your level just to call you out right stupid; I'll even play along with the rest for shits and grins.

I know you're a fan of support links.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexuality

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behavior

have a good one.

[Vehementi]

wow ... yes, I did.

I think maybe english isn't your native language? because you misinterpreted my post as if it was written in chinese pig-latin.

No I didn't; you just didn't like my response.

I have friends I fuck,

Somehow I doubt this. But onto the matter at hand...

and friends I don't fuck ... the friends I don't fuck, are males; the friends I do fuck, are females. so I know the difference between sexual relationships, and non-sexual relationships; I just prefer to go about it in a heterosexual way. now, if you happen to be on the other side of the fence, then I certainly apologize if I offended you(or anyone ... even you Septus), but I certainly stand firm on my assertion that homosexuality is abnormal.

It's pretty amazing that you aren't seeing this. If you had no sex at all, you would surely be less well equipped for sexual (the reproductive kind) relationships, right? And I don't just mean "good at sex", but rather better at interacting intimately with people, better at seduction, etc.

Let's say that you only ever had homosexual relationships, and then you were going to "out into the world" to meet your mate or whatever. Do you feel that you would NOT be more well-equipped than somebody who was a complete virgin?

Unless you disagree, I have just explained something that is surely a reproductively advantageous trait. Hence, to some degree, bisexuality (i.e. non-exclusively homosexual behavior) will be selected for. Obviously it has its risks (e.g. more increased exposure to diseases) which is probably why not everybody in the world is bisexual. This is also probably why homosexuality exists in every culture known (am I wrong?).


what kind of logic did you use to come to that conclusion? I know you two are in cahoots ... hanging out in #CAP.

Well now that you've mentioned it we started laughing at you together rather than privately.

[Vehementi]

I still don't see how you're making that connection, so I'm going to stoop to your level just to call you out right stupid; I'll even play along with the rest for shits and grins.

I know you're a fan of support links.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexuality

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behavior

have a good one.

In your other post, you said that homosexuality was a choice. When questioned, you defined homosexuality to be the act of having sex with another person of the same gender, not the feeling of being attracted. So if you don't actually have sex with another man, you're not being homosexual.

By that definition, if you don't have heterosexual sex, that is, you are a virgin, then you are not heterosexual.

It is amazing again that this had to be spelt out for you. You should consider improving your deductive reasoning skills.

[Septus]

In your other post, you said that homosexuality was a choice. When questioned, you defined homosexuality to be the act of having sex with another person of the same gender, not the feeling of being attracted. So if you don't actually have sex with another man, you're not being homosexual.

By that definition, if you don't have heterosexual sex, that is, you are a virgin, then you are not heterosexual.

It is amazing again that this had to be spelt out for you. You should consider improving your deductive reasoning skills.

I think he wants to just spam a few pages so the bit of him posting retarded creationist gibberish gets lost.

[Vehementi]

Double-#CAP-strike!

High-5!

[Tomaj]

evoluton explains things like the adaptation of humans to live in the mountains better than those of us at lower altitudes but life its self is far far to complex to be accident. besides as far as im hearing from the evolitionists a spiecis desided it was at a disadvantige and actualy changed its DNA. though i have heard on a lesser scale about how some DNA changes between generations. its still not enughe if the earth were as old as is believed then there would be proof of more than 1-2 ice ages. no mater how far down they go the ice and sediment cores only have 1 mabey 2 full blown ice ages. oh and becase i know some ones going to bring it up eventualy. global warming has happened before, how do i know? tropical plants were found in an ice core in the north pole. how can you explane a fern growing there? mabey it was once warm enugh to be more temprate? in witch case there is a cycle of warming and cooling. global warming will give way to global cooling and i'll laugh at every one who jumped on the al gore band wagon.

[Merrin]

Humankind exists because we were created by God.

Evolution occurred under the guidance of the angelic host that had dominion over the earth before Lucifer's rebellion, as was their intended purpose, and as is now humankind's purpose after we are given immortality by God to carry on where the angels failed.

There is an entire universe out there in a complete state of drifting decay, and it's there for a purpose, just as we were created for the purpose of finishing it over the rest of eternity.

[Gibsnag]

evoluton explains things like the adaptation of humans to live in the mountains better than those of us at lower altitudes but life its self is far far to complex to be accident.

Evolution has nothing to do with random chance or accidents.

some people stay virgins, this much is true; my logic is based on natural law. whether you believe in evolution, or creation; homosexuality is an abnormality in either case.

Hardly. You're taking an incredibly simplistic and ignorant view of natural selection. As soon as organisms start working in groups an individual's genes are very likely to be replicated in members of its group and therefore individual sacrifice (such as forgoing reproduction) in a % of the population can occur.

[Dhig]

Humankind exists because we were created by God.

Evolution occurred under the guidance of the angelic host that had dominion over the earth before Lucifer's rebellion, as was their intended purpose, and as is now humankind's purpose after we are given immortality by God to carry on where the angels failed.

There is an entire universe out there in a complete state of drifting decay, and it's there for a purpose, just as we were created for the purpose of finishing it over the rest of eternity.

And what god do you mean by that?
Zeus? Odin? Itzamna? Shiva, Vishnu? Allah? "God"? Amon?
I could go on but I think you understand what I mean.

[Jovien]

Ok let me end this with one simple question...

What religion and what god(s)?

The world is full of many different belief systems some EXTREMELY old some VERY RECENT. Which one do you think accounts for the creation of the human race?

Personally I think religion is an invention of humanity who made elaborate tales up about beings with extraordinary powers that control the forces of nature.

Storm from the X-men anyone?

Its like saying Santa Clause is real because someone made up a tale about a fat guy giving out presents in a red suit.

Was Hercules real? If not then why not? Surely the ancient greek's religion was as real and important to them as christianity is to westerners now?

Religion as evolved along with the human race, centuries a go god was responsible for the creation of the earth and the rising of the sun. Now he's master of the entire universe. Centuries from now god will have mastery of the multiverse and be able to manipulate the temporal timelines.

God is only ever as powerful as the human imagination, the more aware of the world and the universe and what is in it the more powerful our gods become.

Seriously doesn't that make anyone wonder whether or not religion is real?

To me evolution is the stage in a humans existence where they stop believing that santa brings them presents and realise that its actually their parents that work their arses off running around town buying and wrapping them.

[Salo]

@Jovien


*applauds* Excellent post mate.

[Dhig]

To me evolution is the stage in a humans existence where they stop believing that santa brings them presents and realise that its actually their parents that work their arses off running around town buying and wrapping them.

Haha that is so true. Very nice put :)

[Tharkon Fargor]

According to EA we evolved by picking up random pieces that were lying in the sea.
It took me 3 hours.
Thus earth is 3 hours old.
What more do you want?

[Osirus]

No I didn't; you just didn't like my response.



Somehow I doubt this. But onto the matter at hand...

It's pretty amazing that you aren't seeing this. If you had no sex at all, you would surely be less well equipped for sexual (the reproductive kind) relationships, right? And I don't just mean "good at sex", but rather better at interacting intimately with people, better at seduction, etc.

Let's say that you only ever had homosexual relationships, and then you were going to "out into the world" to meet your mate or whatever. Do you feel that you would NOT be more well-equipped than somebody who was a complete virgin?

Unless you disagree, I have just explained something that is surely a reproductively advantageous trait. Hence, to some degree, bisexuality (i.e. non-exclusively homosexual behavior) will be selected for. Obviously it has its risks (e.g. more increased exposure to diseases) which is probably why not everybody in the world is bisexual. This is also probably why homosexuality exists in every culture known (am I wrong?).

so I'm clear on this; you and your lover, Septus ... believe that homosexuality is advantageous and good for humanity, that it is part of the natural selection process?

right, have some more lucky charms.

Well now that you've mentioned it we started laughing at you together rather than privately.

I bet you did ... which one of you was giving the reach around? and if you're the female ... did you strap one on and pack it tight? or did you just cram a finger in his ass?


Jovien - religion has little to do with validating the existence of God or Gods; the Bible(or any book about a God) wasn't written to be doctrine for a religion, though many took the opportunity to twist it into such. religion does not preclude the existence of God(s).

[Vehementi]

so I'm clear on this; you and your lover, Septus ... believe that homosexuality is advantageous and good for humanity, that it is part of the natural selection process?


EVERYTHING is part of the natural selection process. If a behavior is reproductively advantageous*, then it will tend to dominate the gene pool, all other things being equal. If it is reproductively disadvantageous, it will tend to weed itself out (or only be in places where it is not too disadvantageous, etc.). You were confused and asked for clarification, so I explained one simple example of how homosexual behavior can be advantageous. Hence it will be selected for in some cases.

And look, every known culture ever has had limited homosexual behavior! Of course, not exclusive - few people in the population display exclusively homosexual behavior to the point where they never mate with someone of the opposite sex, because that would not work so well for them.

edit to define *: a reproductively advantageous behavior will tend to spread your genes into the gene pool more. This could mean helping your ability to reproduce, or by helping your childrens' ability to reproduce (because if you have small gimp children and they all die, you are not reproductively successful), etc. The latter could be achieved by amassing wealth and popularity so that your children and grandchildren have a healthy pool of people to mate with, for example.

[Osirus]

EVERYTHING is part of the natural selection process. If a behavior is reproductively advantageous*, then it will tend to dominate the gene pool, all other things being equal. If it is reproductively disadvantageous, it will tend to weed itself out (or only be in places where it is not too disadvantageous, etc.). You were confused and asked for clarification, so I explained one simple example of how homosexual behavior can be advantageous. Hence it will be selected for in some cases.

And look, every known culture ever has had limited homosexual behavior! Of course, not exclusive - few people in the population display exclusively homosexual behavior to the point where they never mate with someone of the opposite sex, because that would not work so well for them.

okay, I get where you're coming from now, but I don't agree ...

consider HIV for a moment; HIV can be spread to exclusive heterosexuals who have sex with HIV positive bi-sexuals. a group that is exclusively heterosexual, has zero risk of contracting, or spreading the HIV virus(unless of course one or more of them were born with it).

can you now see how I don't agree that homosexuality is advantageous to the perpetuation of humanity?

now, if you want to suggest that the spreading of HIV through the inter-mingling of bi-sexuals and heterosexuals, is part of the natural selection process, then you may as well say that you believe in fate and destiny.

[Vehementi]

okay, I get where you're coming from now, but I don't agree ...

consider HIV for a moment; HIV can be spread to exclusive heterosexuals who have sex with HIV positive bi-sexuals. a group that is exclusively heterosexual, has zero risk of contracting, or spreading the HIV virus(unless of course one or more of them were born with it).

can you now see how I don't agree that homosexuality is advantageous to the perpetuation of humanity?

now, if you want to suggest that the spreading of HIV through the inter-mingling of bi-sexuals and heterosexuals, is part of the natural selection process, then you may as well say that you believe in fate and destiny.

I already addressed this in my earlier post: homosexual behavior has benefits and drawbacks. If it only had benefits, then *everybody* would exhibit homosexual behavior (in addition to heterosexual, obviously). Everything has benefits and drawbacks, and genes for such things naturally reach equilibrium in the population such that any more of the behavior would be a reproductively disadvantageous choice. Think game theory (look it up if you don't know what I mean) where there is a stable state of 18% of people doing activity A and 82% of people doing activity B, and if anyone switches over, it becomes advantageous for somebody to replace him.

edit: and like I said, everything is part of the natural selection process. What exactly are you trying to say?

[padge]

You mean top left.

And not believing in evolution at this point is almost as foolish as not believing world is round.


exactly, you can refute the big bang theory, but evolution just states that a change in diet, environment, or sexual preference, can result in a change in a species of animal.

[Osirus]

I already addressed this in my earlier post: homosexual behavior has benefits and drawbacks. If it only had benefits, then *everybody* would exhibit homosexual behavior (in addition to heterosexual, obviously). Everything has benefits and drawbacks, and genes for such things naturally reach equilibrium in the population such that any more of the behavior would be a reproductively disadvantageous choice. Think game theory (look it up if you don't know what I mean) where there is a stable state of 18% of people doing activity A and 82% of people doing activity B, and if anyone switches over, it becomes advantageous for somebody to replace him.

and I would agree whole heartedly if HIV only affected the high-risk group that perpetuates the virus, but it doesn't ... it eliminates otherwise healthy genes from the gene pool, that would be beneficial to the perpetuation of humanity. I don't see how you can quantify homosexuality as advantageous.


edit: and like I said, everything is part of the natural selection process. What exactly are you trying to say?

what I mean is this ... if the underlying definition of natural selection, as I'm understanding it; is whatever happens, happens for a reason; to me, that could easily be called destiny.

and I'll tell you why I see it as such; you're suggesting that the intermingling of HIV positive bi-sexuals with non infected heterosexuals, is part of the natural selection in the perpetuation of humanity. so otherwise healthy genes are removed from the gene pool, because that is the course natural selection has chosen for humanity. ergo, a predetermined, inevitable course of events; a.k.a., destiny.

[Vehementi]

You're trying too hard to sound sophisticated

Anyway, one major thing you're missing is that there isn't a concept of "humanity surviving". It's all about genes. Individuals (biologically speaking) do not care about humanity surviving - they only care about perpetuating their own genes. If they could remove competing genes from the gene pool in such a way that it does not screw them in the long run (e.g. due to there being no diversity or whatever), then they would.

For the reason I gave in my other post, homosexuality has advantageous aspects, i.e. you can become more reproductively successful in some cases by practicing homosexuality (you agreed to this). It is a risk/reward system, and it naturally balances out into a stable equilibrium where people are being homosexual "just enough" for it to make sense.


Natural selection has nothing to do with destiny or anyone actually "selecting". It just means that due to the environment (a super broad term), things that are more fit (another super broad term) will tend to propagate their genes more. If aliens attack and send flying indestructible rotary blades that hover at a height of exactly 5' 10" above the ground, shorter people will tend to survive more readily than taller people. They are being "selected for", but not in any conscious way. Shortness will just tend to be a reproductively advantageous trait.

[Osirus]

You're trying too hard to sound sophisticated

there was nothing sophisticated about my post because this topic requires little sophistication ...


Anyway, one major thing you're missing is that there isn't a concept of "humanity surviving". It's all about genes. Individuals (biologically speaking) do not care about humanity surviving - they only care about perpetuating their own genes. If they could remove competing genes from the gene pool in such a way that it does not screw them in the long run (e.g. due to there being no diversity or whatever), then they would.

so what you're saying is ... a human doesn't care about humanity surviving, he/she just wants to perpetuate his/her genes; isn't that the perpetuation of humanity?

For the reason I gave in my other post, homosexuality has advantageous aspects, i.e. you can become more reproductively successful in some cases by practicing homosexuality (you agreed to this)(show me where I agreed to this, because you're fucking crazy). It is a risk/reward system, and it naturally balances out into a stable equilibrium where people are being homosexual "just enough" for it to make sense.

okay, yeah yeah, I get it ... EUREKA!

so tell me, how much of a homosexual are you? are you just enough of a homosexual? maybe too much?

Natural selection has nothing to do with destiny or anyone actually "selecting". It just means that due to the environment (a super broad term), things that are more fit (another super broad term) will tend to propagate their genes more. If aliens attack and send flying indestructible rotary blades that hover at a height of exactly 5' 10" above the ground, shorter people will tend to survive more readily than taller people. They are being "selected for", but not in any conscious way. Shortness will just tend to be a reproductively advantageous trait.

wow, talk about gibberish; you really believe all of this shit you posted in this entire response?

if anyone is trying to be more sophisticated than is necessary, it's you. sometimes you have to step back and forget all that advanced shit to remember the basics ... you've been brainfucked ... you may as well be a bible thumper, preaching the gospels.

[Vehementi]

Removing the troll parts...

so what you're saying is ... a human doesn't care about humanity surviving, he/she just wants to perpetuate his/her genes;

I can't talk about what people consciously care about. However, the fact is that the genes that survive are the ones that "concern themselves" with their own selfish survival, and not the survival of others.

isn't that the perpetuation of humanity?

No, and that's key. The genes aren't thinking "Ah, I want humanity as a whole, our large and awesome culture, to survive!". If anything, it is advantageous for the genes to "live socially" so they will not go out and kill everyone they see (ignoring the risk of death here, haha) to make their genes more representative.



As for where you agreed, it was two posts ago where you said "Oh yeah I see what you mean" and you accepted that what I said would be an advantage of homosexuality. Then you countered and said you think that overall homosexuality is disadvantageous due to the disease thing. I was pointing out that you had in fact agreed with my first thing. If this isn't the case, feel free to post a well-researched reply correcting me.

[Osirus]

Removing the troll parts...



I can't talk about what people consciously care about. However, the fact is that the genes that survive are the ones that "concern themselves" with their own selfish survival, and not the survival of others.


No, and that's key. The genes aren't thinking "Ah, I want humanity as a whole, our large and awesome culture, to survive!". If anything, it is advantageous for the genes to "live socially" so they will not go out and kill everyone they see (ignoring the risk of death here, haha) to make their genes more representative.



As for where you agreed, it was two posts ago where you said "Oh yeah I see what you mean" and you accepted that what I said would be an advantage of homosexuality. Then you countered and said you think that overall homosexuality is disadvantageous due to the disease thing. I was pointing out that you had in fact agreed with my first thing. If this isn't the case, feel free to post a well-researched reply correcting me.


this is what I wrote: okay, I get where you're coming from now, but I don't agree ...

wtf? do you read? that means I understand the fucked up logic you're using; I clearly say I disagree. you have misinterpreted many of my posts in this thread ... and that right there, is concrete proof of your extensive use selective reading; you must be a woman.

the rest of your spewage, is exactly what I meant by forgetting all that advanced shit that's clogging your brain. you don't realize that by the very nature of a pair of individuals wishing to perpetuate the life cycle of their genes, they are intentional perpetuating humanty, by default; they don't have to be aware of it, they don't have to consciously achknowledge it, but it is what the fuck they are doing.

[Vehementi]

this is what I wrote:

wtf? do you read? that means I understand the fucked up logic you're using; I clearly say I disagree. you have misinterpreted many of my posts in this thread ... and that right there, is concrete proof of your extensive use selective reading; you must be a woman.



I said, if you disagree, explain why, don't just sit there with random bullshit flames when I'm trying to help you figure this out. I'm laughing at you right now for not acknowledging that as an advantage of homosexual behavior, though. Hahahahah, wow dude.

And fuck off with your sexism and homophobia.



the rest of your spewage, is exactly what I meant by forgetting all that advanced shit that's clogging your brain. you don't realize that by the very nature of a pair of individuals wishing to perpetuate the life cycle of their genes, they are intentional perpetuating humanty, by default; they don't have to be aware of it, they don't have to consciously achknowledge it, but it is what the fuck they are doing.

No, the case is exactly the opposite of what you say. Consciously, they probably think they ARE perpetuating humanity, because that's what most cultures teach you. You know, have kids, contribute to society, etc. In fact, what they're doing is perpetuating their genes only and this does not necessarily mean "perpetuating humanity" - it could be the opposite, the two just happen to have a lot of functional overlap right now.

[Osirus]

I said, if you disagree, explain why, don't just sit there with random bullshit flames when I'm trying to help you figure this out. I'm laughing at you right now for not acknowledging that as an advantage of homosexual behavior, though. Hahahahah, wow dude.

And fuck off with your sexism and homophobia.

laugh all you want, I was spot on ... and if you're not a woman ... you must be the bitch.


No, the case is exactly the opposite of what you say. Consciously, they probably think they ARE perpetuating humanity, because that's what most cultures teach you. You know, have kids, contribute to society, etc. In fact, what they're doing is perpetuating their genes only and this does not necessarily mean "perpetuating humanity" - it could be the opposite, the two just happen to have a lot of functional overlap right now.

wtf? see, that shit went right over your head again. selective reading.

[Vehementi]

You are correct that you said you disagreed, I just assumed you were smart enough to comprehend that that was, in fact, one advantage of homosexuality, regardless of the existence of other disadvantages, such as disease as you noted. From the context, your disagreement seemed to be with the overall point (that homosexuality is advantageous overall), which you proceeded to address. If you're not that smart, then I apologize. In any case, I'm still waiting (not really) for an explanation of how that is, in fact, not one advantage of homosexuality.

[Septus]

I'd just like to remind everyone that this thread was actually about evolution, and how Osirus pasted stupid creationist crap like "genetic mutation can't account for new genes! OMG we creationists are so smart!"

As if that wasn't bad enough Osirus, you then had the gall to pretend you were actually talking about Ohno's Dilemma, which has nothing to do with whether or not mutation can create new genes.

Bravo though, it's always hilarious to see you flee back to something unrelated like the homosexuality argument. (Osirus: "must find an issue with less scientific information!")

[Osirus]

I'd just like to remind everyone that this thread was actually about evolution, and how Osirus pasted stupid creationist crap like "genetic mutation can't account for new genes! OMG we creationists are so smart!"

As if that wasn't bad enough Osirus, you then had the gall to pretend you were actually talking about Ohno's Dilemma, which has nothing to do with whether or not mutation can create new genes.

Bravo though, it's always hilarious to see you flee back to something unrelated like the homosexuality argument. (Osirus: "must find an issue with less scientific information!")

look you fuck, the link I posted was a gateway to another page that had everything to do Ohno's work; if you had clicked the forward link on that page, you would figure that out. but you're always too busy trying to invalidate anyone elses opinion, because you think you are smarter, better than other people. then you went on to google Ohno's work, read the abstract on Ohno's Dilemma, and made a post as if you were an authorative figure on the subject.

you do the same shit in every thread; you resort calling people names like dumbfuck, retard, stupid, and always ALWAYS belittling them, always trying to make someone else look bad. come to find out, you're just recently out of the closet; it's okay, it's a choice you were born to make.

you're a bitch dude.

as for Vehementi ... quite frankly, it would be a waste of my time to explain anything to you, you've clearly expressed that, several times.

[Vehementi]

Hahaha well done Septus, you broke him :)

[Septus]

look you fuck, the link I posted was a gateway to another page that had everything to do Ohno's work; if you had clicked the forward link on that page, you would figure that out. but you're always too busy trying to invalidate anyone elses opinion, because you think you are smarter, better than other people. then you went on to google Ohno's work, read the abstract on Ohno's Dilemma, and made a post as if you were an authorative figure on the subject.

What I did do was check the root page. You're not getting scientific information, you're getting completely retarded misinformation from a creationist website.

And if you were talking about Ohno's dilemma, why did you quote something completely different, and bold a sentence saying "genetic mutation does not account for creation of new genes, and thus cannot account for the creation of new organs," etc.

Answer: you're a fucking idiot.

[Dhig]

Haha funny thread.

Homosexuals are not advantageous and cant reproduce.
I dont care about homosexuals because they are no threat to the nature.
Just dont poke my butt :eek:

Evolution is the shit because of the fact that there are no abstract things like gods. Curiousity got us this far and our need to develop.

[Vehementi]

What I did do was check the root page. You're not getting scientific information, you're getting completely retarded misinformation from a creationist website.

Osirius if you get nothing else out of this conversation, it should be that you check your sources well. Septus is 100% correct that the website you linked (and I read the page after that, and it is drawing incorrect conclusions from Ohno's work and taking his quotes out of context) is creationist propaganda.