|
| Thread: A Visit to the Zoo |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
posted May 22, 2013 08:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Doesn't information from DNA pretty much prove evolution?
It rather proves that all living things have something in common, since our DNA is very similar to the banana's.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 08:29 PM |
|
|
You still haven't convinced me of anything other than that humans were likely exceptionally dumb until thousands of years ago when all of a sudden they started civilization.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 08:29 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:34, 22 May 2013.
|
The banana tree is your relative too, think of it as a very very very very distant cousin.
Quote:
You still haven't convinced me of anything other than that humans were likely exceptionally dumb until thousands of years ago when all of a sudden they started civilization.
You do not realize that you are only humiliating yourself right now.
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 08:32 PM |
|
|
of course. the DNA of monkey evolved by eating bananas 
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 08:35 PM |
|
|
All of a sudden is such an interesting choise of words. What do they teach you at shools 
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 08:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You still haven't convinced me of anything other than that humans were likely exceptionally dumb until thousands of years ago when all of a sudden they started civilization.
It's not about being "dumb" or not. We didn't really become much more intelligent by all those years, we just achieved some other things like technology and such. That's not really the intelligence since most of this new stuff was made by some humans, not everyone.
So no, we're not much less "duuuh" than our ancestors from 200 000 years ago, I'm afraid.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 08:38 PM |
|
|
In my schoolbooks at least there were words about the evolutionist theory and about the creationist one.
Since this is mainly about humans, I won't go off topic and say how many problems I have with blind evolution as a whole.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 08:43 PM |
|
|
It's strange since the creationist one fails at so many levels, while the evolutionist one is still very probable.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 08:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
so there is no adaptation. the so-called adapted (evolved?) animal existed before the so-called adaptation (evolution?) took place.
That is so not what I said.
what didn't I understand? you have white and black people. black people aren't adapted to the environment, so they die. the whole population becomes white and you say the population adaptated. no?
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 09:36 PM |
|
|
Which is why to some extent I believe in a guided evolution.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 09:43 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:45, 22 May 2013.
|
Quote:
In my schoolbooks at least there were words about the evolutionist theory and about the creationist one.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, it's faith. Teaching both as they have symmetrical substance is like teaching solar-centered system and earth centered system in a science class, saying they are both theories. Also what you talk about has nothing to do with evolution. It's total non-sense even if we were created as we are 15 thousand years ago.
Quote:
what didn't I understand? you have white and black people. black people aren't adapted to the environment, so they die. the whole population becomes white and you say the population adaptated. no?
There are mutations in every generation, yet the change they affect is so minimal and unnoticeable, it can't qualify as adaptation if your perspective is just two or three generations. The survival of the fittest is something measured in thousands of generations.
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 10:59 PM |
|
|
|
what are those mutations?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 11:05 PM |
|
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 11:44 PM |
|
|
There is so much confusion surrounding "evolution as fact and theory".
That creatures evolve over time is a scientific fact. It has been directly observed on countless occasions. This is what is meant by "evolution is a fact". It truly is indisputable if you place any trust in the scientific method.
Natural selection is the most widely accepted theory (so widely accepted that there is virtually no other theory in competition) to explain the fact that creatures evolve. There have been other theories to explain the facts of evolution, but none have held up to empirical tests. The fundamentals of natural selection are practically indisputable. However there are still mechanistic aspects of the theory of natural selection that are still not completely understood. This is why it is a theory and always will be - because it is still being tested and refined. People need to keep in mind that there is a difference between a theory as scientists define it and the layman's definition.
Creationism is not a scientific theory because it does not pass the litmus test for what a scientific theory is. This does not mean it is untrue. But it does mean that it is not a scientific theory, is not an alternative to the theory of natural selection, and should not be taught in classrooms as such.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 12:34 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:36, 23 May 2013.
|
Elodin, it's amazing that after I write this, giving the link of what theory means in science:
Quote:
It is a fact and there is a working theory about that fact. Theory, in scientific terminology, does not mean assumption, that's a hypothesis.
you still object to me by saying "evolution is a theory that has not been proven and is constantly being modified."
Maybe you didn't get it, theories get modified all the time, it's a regular thing, not an indication of uncertainty. And I'm sorry to disappoint you but it is certainly agreed upon. Your link is from the eighties, that is before the Genom Project but even back then that stuff was considered pseudo-science by vast majority of scientists. And may I remind you among countries that actually produce serious amount of science, US is the only one that has a problem with evolution (among laymen) and the reason is your puritan culture not scientific doubt. So it would be good for you to realize that saying evolution may not be true is indeed the equivalent of being a young earth creationist today. And like young earth creationists, they are only being made fun of: Project Steve
Quote:
Evolution is a theory of history and can't be repeated.
So is the big bang, Earth's surface cooling down, continents drifting apart etc etc. Besides, not being able to repeat 3.5 billion years does not mean it has not been tested or unscientific, ever heard of the Lenski Experiments?
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 12:57 AM |
|
Edited by fauch at 01:16, 23 May 2013.
|
ok, I can see how mutations may cause an evolution. but the word "adaptation" still seems weird to me. it's not like your DNA evolves to adapt to the environment. it rather seems to happen by accident. but maybe that actually fits the definition of adaptation too?
survival of the fittest doesn't seem to have much to do with evolution, even though mutations may improve your chances to survive (or decrease them). taken alone it doesn't seem to explain evolution. the fact that you survived and others not, doesn't imply there was an evolution.
just curious, do the theory say something about GMO or eugenics?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 01:06 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:50, 23 May 2013.
|
Well, the animals themselves don't try to adapt intentionally of course. That's what people mean when they say evolution has no direction or goal. The ones that are more fitting to the environment have an advantage over the others, so they don't die and get the better chance to pass their DNA to the next generation. Adaptation simply refers to that. A white bear has a better chance of camouflage while hunting in a snow terrain, he doesn't try to adapt to snow terrain, nevertheless, the result is an adaptation to his natural environment when your perspective is generations of bears.
Quote:
survival of the fittest doesn't seem to have much to do with evolution, even though mutations may improve your chances to survive (or decrease them). taken alone it doesn't seem to explain evolution. the fact that you survived and others not, doesn't imply there was an evolution.
On the contrary, it is the basic dynamic of evolution we can detect as of now. It's just hard to imagine sometimes because of the incredible amount of time that it takes. Think how language changes overtime (in a relatively shorter time) and it becomes clearer.
Quote:
just curious, do the theory say something about GMO or eugenics?
No. That's not about explaining things but deciding things. It's not the job of biology to do that. It can develop the technology to do it but to use it or not is a moral choice.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 01:51 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:52, 23 May 2013.
|
Quote:
So it would be good for you to realize that saying evolution may not be true is indeed the equivalent of being a young earth creationist today.
No, being a young earth creationist is being a young earth creationist. And it is still false to say evolution has been proved.
Evolution is a theory about history. We can make deductions on the past based on observations, and these deductions may or may not be true.
Even if it were shown by repeatable observations in the present that a single cell organism [not even discussing where that life came from] evolved through no manipulation of environment or other surroundings, merely observations, into a modern man, even if all that happened today in a laboratory you still would not be able to prove that that is what actually happened in human history.
So, make all the claims you want, but the theory of evolution is unproved.
Science is an imperfect tool with imperfect people making imperfect measurements with imperfect instruments, making imperfect observations, and reaching imperfect conclusions. Don't worship the fallible theories.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 01:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So, make all the claims you want, but the theory of evolution is unproved.
Science is an imperfect tool with imperfect people making imperfect measurements with imperfect instruments, making imperfect observations, and reaching imperfect conclusions. Don't worship the fallible theories.
I guess with your criteria the only way to prove it is a time machine and a video recorder capable of recording 3.5 billion years. As I stated earlier, science is a thousand times more precise compared to your religion BECAUSE it is aware of that imperfection and I don't WORSHIP anything, I sure give it more credit than thousands of years old myths which are not using instruments while not making observations and reaching "perfect" conclusions.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 02:00 AM |
|
|
Eh, this is the most common general religious attacks on science and revolves around a single idea: science is incomplete, imperfect, and therefore unreliable.
Evolution theory is highly accurate in the observable regime,yet creationists would have you discard it in favor of an "alternative theory" which is not accurate in the observable regime, based on their promise that it will be accurate elsewhere. Let them follow their speculations, as science is a philosophy with which most creationists are completely ignorant.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
|
|
