PDA

View Full Version : Evolutionary Biology replaced by Bible Studies in American Schools.


Kate
04-08-2004, 23:01
Yes. That's right. Before I post the facts, I would like you to click the link below and think about the picture:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/images/sci.gif

As a motto, 'In God we trust' is perfect for America

And this is what I found on a religious website: The evolutionists are trying to take over our schools. (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/22sch01.htm)

What is wrong with this world? Why do I suddenly feel that I went back in time to the middle ages when men killed witches? WTF is going on? Since Bush became president, Bible became a part of school education system, and evolution is "optional". What? :ithink: America is keeping knowledge from it's own people! Just what we need, more ignorance in this world! :rolleyes: Common! This is outrageous.

Primitive Religious Beliefs have no place in a Science Class!!!
There are people that believe that the Bible is the word of God and therefore what the Bible says is true. "God said it, I believe it, and that's that!" We live in a country where everyone has the right to believe whatever he or she wants no matter how stupid it is. But that doesn't make it any less stupid. We are starting a new century and it's time we started looking at reality the way it really is.

I am writing this for the children of the State of Kansas so that those of you who surf the web can read about real science rather than be forced to endure your state's bizarre religious views that they insist on calling science. If they throw out the science of evolution because it doesn't agree with the Bible, then they'll have to throw out Astronomy too, because Astronomy doesn't agree with the Bible either.

If we're going to promote mythical based beliefs in schools and allow local school boards to teach Creationism instead of Evolution, then who not allow local school boards to teach Astrology instead of Astronomy? We'll just redefine Science to mean whatever the majority of the local school board believes in. If a local school board thinks the world is flat, then the world is flat. I better not give Kansas any more ideas. I've been to Kansas and you don't have to be there very long before the belief that the world is flat seems plausible.

The Bible is Wrong
The difference between evolution and Creationism is that evolution is real and Creationism is not real. Creationism is based on the Bible that says that God created the world in 6 days about 10,000 years ago. Clearly the world was not created in 6 days about 10,000 years ago so therefore the Bible is just plain wrong. If the world were merely 10,000 years old then how do you explain the dinosaurs that are millions of years old? We've discovered life fossils that date back billions of years. Even the skeletons of modern humans date back before the time of Adam and Eve.

If we were to believe the Bible, then we would have to believe the Earth was created before the stars, which is the wrong order. If the stars were created 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to see starts that were more than 10,000 light years away. That's because if a star were further away than 10,000 light years, the light from that star wouldn't have got here yet. Our galaxy alone is about 100,000 light years across. If the Bible were true, we wouldn't be able to see but 1/10th the way across our own galaxy. We surely wouldn't be able to see other galaxies or galactic clusters or know that the universe is expanding.

Our modern technology has proved the Bible wrong. That means that if there is a God, he didn't write the Bible and the Bible is not his word. If the Bible were the word of God and the Bible is wrong, then God is wrong. And if God can't be wrong, then the Bible, which is wrong, can't be the word of God.

Men who lived thousands of years ago wrote the Bible. The authors had limited knowledge of the nature of the universe and wrote the Bible based on what they believed at the time. They didn't know the Earth was round and that it orbited the Sun, which is a star among billions of stars in the galaxy which is but one galaxy in billions of galaxies that have existed for billions of years. To them, the world was flat. There was up and there was down and God lived in the sky. They didn't know the world was round and there was no such thing as "up". They didn't know that the sky was a thin layer of gas that surrounds the surface of this planet. We have been to the sky and we have been above the sky and God isn't living there.

Evolution is Real
As to evolution, evolution is science. We have the bones of creatures living millions of years ago that are the links between different forms of life. The bone exist that link us humans we our common ancestors that we share with other primates. In fact we have unearthed many civilizations that go back further than 10,000 years and predate Adam and Eve. And these discoveries actually exist and can be measured. We know them to be real.

Evolution is happening right now. Farmers have been using evolution for thousands of years to bread new and better farm animals and crops. The corn we eat today is very different than the corn that was raised by the ancient Egyptians. Today's cattle are very different from cows a few hundred years ago. The difference is that farmers controlled the breading to select the best individuals and to cause them to reproduce instead of the inferior ones. We have taken control of evolution and used it to out benefit.

Do we know everything about evolution? No, we don't. But we know a great deal, and we're learning more every day. As we pursue science and research we are expanding our knowledge of the reality of the universe and the world around us. This is real knowledge about the way that the world actually is. Knowledge that has come from scientific discovery rather than the mythology of past and primitive civilizations.

Why People don't like Evolution
People don't like the idea of evolution because of our fear of death and that we like to think of ourselves as something special. The idea that we "came from monkeys" is as disgusting as sex. If God made man in his image and we are the only life in the universe and we are dominate over all other things and we're going to live forever, that would be a great reality for us. Unfortunately, that's not the way it is.

On the other hand, this planet is but a speck of dust in the universe. We are a small planet rotating around a star that is one of billions of stars in a galaxy that is one of billions of galaxies in a universe that existed for billions of years. The universe is likely teaming with life, some of which is so evolved that they would never visit here because we are too primitive to even be considered interesting, unless we were considered tasty food. We exist as a result of random chance and the only reason we exist is because our parents and their parents before them gave into overwhelming sexual instincts, like the animals have, and we were formed as a chance DNA combination. We exist for no other reason.

Now, which one would you rather believe? It's simple. We would all rather believe that we are special and that God has a special purpose for us and that we are important. But which one is real? The one we would rather believe? Or do we believe what is supported by scientific fact. Sometimes what we want and the way things are are not the same. It takes courage to believe in what's real. Those who are afraid of what's real are attached to maintaining the illusion of a creation rather than facing the facts. The reason I'm here is because my father didn't have it together enough to use a condom properly. It's that simple.

The Evolution of Christianity
Christianity itself has evolved over the centuries. In order to survive it has had to change an adapt. Many religions and many branches of Christianity have become extinct over the centuries. In order to survive, Christianity has had to merge with the cultures of other religions. For example, Christmas is not a Christian holiday. Christmas was originally Yule and people cut down and decorated trees long before Christ was born. Easter had nothing to do with Christ rising from the dead. Easter was a pagan fertility ritual where pagans prayed to the Gods for reproduction and food. Hence, the rabbits and the eggs.

The religions of the world are threatened by modern science. We humans have evolved to the point where we know a lot more than we ever did and we now know that a lot of what we believed for centuries is just plain wrong. However, we humans are still herd animals and it is our instinctive nature to continue to believe what the tribe believes rather than what's logical. Our minds have not yet evolved to the point where logic and reason dominates over tribal patterns. (Except for me of course. That's why I'm writing this.) But because of technology, and especially computers, the day is coming where the rest of humanity can move up to my level and beyond. (Sorry, it's not ego, it's my warped sense of humor. In your heart you know I'm right though.)

As religion evolves people will turn from mythology to reality. As humans become smarter, people will want to understand the real world the way it really is. The 21st century will be the century of the global mind and the Church of Reality will evolve into the dominate religion on the planet. And I will go down in history as the Dalai Lama of nerds.

:mad:

thegurgi
04-08-2004, 23:20
Men who lived thousands of years ago wrote the Bible. The authors had limited knowledge of the nature of the universe and wrote the Bible based on what they believed at the time. They didn't know the Earth was round and that it orbited the Sun, which is a star among billions of stars in the galaxy which is but one galaxy in billions of galaxies that have existed for billions of years. To them, the world was flat. There was up and there was down and God lived in the sky. They didn't know the world was round and there was no such thing as "up". They didn't know that the sky was a thin layer of gas that surrounds the surface of this planet. We have been to the sky and we have been above the sky and God isn't living there.
Kate, i JUST fell in love with you :rose: :love: :yes:

I agree with some of what's said there... and i grow up in a very conservative area where Biology students think that Evolution is crap and that God snapped his fingers and the world appeared as it is.

I recently had a conversation with my surrogate brother about a topic similar to this:
I was telling him of my recent trip to eastern PA where i had to spend a week with My fundamentalist grandparents. I ramble a lot to myself, and were were driving to Scranton and i was watching the rocks that had been carved out of the mountains to make the roads [i hope people know what i'm talking about]... in my ramblings, i accidentally said the words "plate tectonics"... at which point my grandfather asks me "So, greg, you don't believe in the bible? you don't believe that the world is as God originally made it?" I quickly said, no, but i do believe :: and thought quickly, i had to make it sounded like i still was, you know, a bible banger or risk being thrown from the car as a heretic ::. ... The bible was written by men who were inspired by the voice of God, right? [he said yes]... well if God had told these men that the world was made of processes like plate techtonics and all the other things we know they would have freaked out! He told the people what they would understand....

and that's what i'm getting at, the Bible [old testament] was written as an interpretion and a way to explain what we didn't know... now wheter or not it was told to them by God or not is up to you... but i think people need to realize that Science is developing REAL answers to some of the things that were "Explained" in the bible, and we shouldn't just smack them down because the bible says "and god said let there be light"...

of course, if my surrogate brother was there he'd have said "Oh, God just made the earth look old so the geologist would have jobs..." hahahaha, smart ass...

as for Kansas...... gah! that's worse than my World Cultures teacher telling us that Hindi's are polytheistic because christians know better.......... :: Pish ::


and may i just say, if you can't "handle" reading things that contradict your own beliefs, you must not be as strong a believer as you say you are. A person strong in what they believe will have no problem listening to others express their views.......

haku
04-08-2004, 23:33
Great post katbeidar, i basically agree with everything you've said. :D

What is wrong with this world? Why do I suddenly feel that I went back in time to the middle ages when men killed witches? WTF is going on?
I'm not too worried about that though, it's not the world, it's only the US and the Middle East that are going through a new Medieval period, and they are going deeper and deeper into it each year.
But like during Europe's medieval period, science and knowledge will continue to thrive in other parts of the world and this time it's Europe, India and China that will continue to develop science while the US and the Middle East are taken over by religious extremists.

russkayatatu
05-08-2004, 03:13
katbeidar, don't you think you should give credit to the website from which you copied and pasted?

http://www.churchofreality.org/opinion/evolve.htm

Lux
05-08-2004, 06:34
religious schools have a right to exist, but teaching the bible as "the way" isn't correct. evolution is a fact, after all.

Kate
05-08-2004, 07:26
russkayatatu, I forgot. I was late to Uni when I wrote this, took a bit more time then it should have. Lol.

luxxi
05-08-2004, 11:58
I always wondered why this evolution/creationism crap is only debated in US. E.g. you can't find this (http://www.chick.com/search/subject.idq?SubjectScope=%2F&Subject=Evolution&CiMaxRecordsPerPage=25&TemplateName=Results&CiSort=create%5Bd%5D&HTMLQueryForm=%2Fsearch%2F&Action=Search) elsewhere.

:newyear:

forre
05-08-2004, 12:04
Since Bush became president, Bible became a part of school education system, and evolution is "optional".

Unbelievable! :eek: When ignorance takes over instead of a good analysis based on the facts, the world turns upside down. That is simply dangerous.

freddie
05-08-2004, 16:25
Only people that use organized religion as means of exploitation and sanctuary for their fears and prejudice would hang on to it so vigorously to deny scientific facts. Sad really. I find people like that pathetic. The worse humanity has to offer. The weak and the hypocrits.

kishkash
05-08-2004, 17:13
They didn't know that the sky was a thin layer of gas that surrounds the surface of this planet. We have been to the sky and we have been above the sky and God isn't living there. Exactly. Talk about living in ur own little ignorant world, when a book full of ancient beliefs is taken to be fact.

:rolleyes:

goku
05-08-2004, 19:04
Exactly. Talk about living in ur own little ignorant world, when a book full of ancient beliefs is taken to be fact.

:rolleyes:
Looks like I'll be the only one in the forum to counter this argument. I'm not pro-creation, or anti-evolution; I'm not taking a one-sided stand.

First, I have to say that evolution is a theory! It is a stab in the dark, a guess as to what might have happened. It is strongly supported from what we can comprehend and the circumstantial evidence we've gathered to support it; but we can never prove it's truth! We were not there, so we will never know, and to say we know what happened in itself is ignorant. That makes creationism no better or worse than evolution.

Only people that use organized religion as means of exploitation and sanctuary for their fears and prejudice would hang on to it so vigorously to deny scientific facts. Sad really. I find people like that pathetic. The worse humanity has to offer. The weak and the hypocrits.
I find that extremely harsh, somewhat offensive to a point. I have many good friends of a plethora of religions, some are extremely devout, but that doesn't make them worse in my opinion. In fact, I respect someone more if they believe strongly in what they believe in. Here it is again, scientific facts. There is no such thing as a scientific fact. Do we know that gravity really exists? It is our opinion on the matter, it may just be an illusion. Optical illusions trick the mind into seeing things that aren't really there or aren't as they should be. Can Kate know that evolution is real and the bible is fake? This is just an opinion, just like creationism is an opinion or any other hypothesis at our creation. Finally, labeling these people "the worse humanity has to offer" is extreme. What about criminals, rapists, murderers?

luxxi
05-08-2004, 19:15
First, I have to say that evolution is a theory! It is a stab in the dark, a guess as to what might have happened. It is strongly supported from what we can comprehend and the circumstantial evidence we've gathered to support it; but we can never prove it's truth! We were not there, so we will never know, and to say we know what happened in itself is ignorant.

Actually that is not completly true. Evolution can be observed. Three examples.

1. This one was observed by Darwin and triggered whole theory. In Galapagos island are strong winds. Darwin noticed that certain type of bugs don't have wings because they would be blown away. They have wings elsewhere.

2. Viruses. When antibiotics came out they were very effective. But then doctors overprescribed them and viruses got more resiliant and antibiotics are less effective.

3. Hedgehogs. When hedgehog crosses road at night and you light him he will do what reflexs tell him to, he will curl into a ball. That of course increases chances of him geting run over. However peopel noticed that certain hedgehogs don't react like this and run away. It's only a short time to see if this feature get's more widespread. Evolution would say yes. Because hedgehogs that run will survive and will breed and transmit "running genes" to offspring.

Evolution can be observed in lifeforms with short life span and quick reproduction.



That makes creationism no better or worse than evolution.


Not true. Evolution provided evidence supporting it's theory. Creationism hasn't (beside the Bible). Also creationists spend all their time disproving evolution, not proving creationism. Disproving evolution doesn't automatically proves creationism. Not by long shot. If creationist want their theory to be treated with same respect as evolution provide fact that stand up to scrutiny. Also evolution theory changes with new facts being discovered. Which is a sign of flexible thinking. Can creationism adapt to new facts?

:newyear:

haku
05-08-2004, 19:48
First, I have to say that evolution is a theory! It is a stab in the dark, a guess as to what might have happened. It is strongly supported from what we can comprehend and the circumstantial evidence we've gathered to support it; but we can never prove it's truth! We were not there, so we will never know, and to say we know what happened in itself is ignorant. That makes creationism no better or worse than evolution.
Evolution is NOT a theory, it's a fact! There are several theories aiming to explain the mechanism of evolution, but evolution itself is a fact.

Humans have been on this planet long enough to actually witness it! The animals drawn in caves by our ancestors no longer exist, where are they? They have evolved into modern species (and some have simply become extinct).

Like luxxi said, evolution can even be *observed* in life forms with short life spans, we can see how those species are rapidly evolving through thousands of generations.


Creationism is not even a theory, it's a bunch of crap. So the world and all life forms were created 6000 years ago exacty how they are today? Please! We can see animals and plants evolving everywhere, we can see continents moving, we can see the climate changing (there were once a forest where the Sahara desert is now for example). The whole planet and its life forms are constantly reshaping under our very eyes everyday!

Creationism is as stupid as Spontaneous Generation, because you just have to look around you to see that it's wrong, lol.

thegurgi
05-08-2004, 19:58
no haku, in technicality Evolution is a theory.... look it up. The thing is it that scientists can't claim that evolution has been happening all this time in the way we can on other facts. Goku is right, it's rather arrogant to say so... and they can't claim it to be a fact, i know they want to. I believe that Evolution is a fact, but that's all we can really say. In my Geology course my teacher had to be careful with Evolution, he called it something different which had to go with the Fossil Record.

Actually, if you look into the fossil record you'll find some amazing support for evolution on certain species, wherein you can see their developement.

But it's not something we should worry about to much, i know that there are some creationists who would stop at nothing to make sure that Evolution is no longer taught as a theory. You can't stop the progression of science.... after all, they threw Galilieo in jail and didn't they KILL nostradomus for thinking outside the box. I'm not too worried, but I just HATE when people can't handle the teaching of different thoughts.... and i do think that creationism is just TO simple of an idea for Science Teacher to be forced to teach... it must be rather painful for them

haku
05-08-2004, 21:03
no haku, in technicality Evolution is a theory.... look it up.Not here. :) (I've just checked my French encyclopedia, lol, and i remember what my teachers said even though it was 20 years ago.)

Here, evolution is regarded as an observable phenomenon, like tectonics, or the fact that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun.

What are considered theories are the various hypotheses to explain the phenomenon of evolution (Lamarck's theory, Darwin's natural selection theory, and the modern theories of synthetic evolution and synergic evolution, etc) but evolution itself is regarded as an undeniable fact, it's only the way it works that is being researched.

Kate
05-08-2004, 21:15
goku, First, I have to say that evolution is a theory! It is a stab in the dark, a guess as to what might have happened. Yes. A theory. But in science, a theory means something backed up with good facts and proof. It's not the word "theory" we use day to day, like "Mary is going to brak up with John, but it's only my theory". :rolleyes: In science, theory is as good as fact. You don't say Pythagoras' theorem is a stab in the dark, do you? Nope. Same with evolution. You can say that evolution is a fact. :)

luxxi
05-08-2004, 21:39
and didn't they KILL nostradomus for thinking outside the box.

Nope. :no: He died of natural causes. He even predicted how he will die and how his body will be found.

:newyear:

thegurgi
05-08-2004, 22:14
yeah, i knew that, i meant Socrates...

I was taught that a theory is a an idea that is neither proven or unproven. Something widely accepted but not necessarily proven to be a fact. Haku, it makes me insanely happy to know that there is a place that states Evolution as a fact... but here in the States i could be socially crucified for saying that...

Science is backwards here... in my area at least. People here are ruled by the Bible, and it was hard for me sometimes, being the radical that i am. In a debate about Evolutio n, Stem Cell and other things in this scientific matter [and other social things, like gay marriage and abortion (Which has it's scientific standpoints to me)], in a class of 30, i was only 2 or 3 were for the "pro" side... everyone else was complete against it [this was in high school]. Luckily, my classmates didn't really hold it against me...

but yeah, even Science majors think that Evolution is crap, and yet they believe in plate tectonics, dinosaurs and other things. Yet, just because it says "God made Man in his own image" ... Evolution is crap.

But it's really just because the whole world completely misinterpreted what Darwin originally spoke. Poor man....

But lets not forget, we did completely outlaw the teaching of Evolution in our schools, wasn't it Plessy vs. Ferguson? ...

Kate
05-08-2004, 22:58
thegurgi, I was taught that a theory is a an idea that is neither proven or unproven. Something widely accepted but not necessarily proven to be a fact. Not in scientific world. To make something a theory in science, you need to prove it with facts and so on. :heh:

I believe in Evolution. I worship it, if you will. I hope that someday, when I get a degree in molecular bio-technology, I'll be able to prove genetic relationship between hominids (Paranthropi, Australopithecines etc) and us. It's my aim in life.

By the way, two interesting FACTS:

1). Champanzees and humans share 99% of genes. Only 1% of our genetic material is different.

2). Mitochondrial DNA, which can only be passed down the maternal line and is not involved in crossing-over during meiosis (thus making it's mutation rate easy to calculate) can be tracked back to a single woman in Africa, who lived approximately 200,000 years ago. :) That's the "Eve Theory".

spyretto
05-08-2004, 23:01
Easter had nothing to do with Christ rising from the dead. Easter was a pagan fertility ritual where pagans prayed to the Gods for reproduction and food. Hence, the rabbits and the eggs.
:mad:

Yet everybody knows that Easter was to celebrate the Jews' passage to Jerusalem. :p

To me, evolution seems as shaky as religion and the "fact" that Man has descented from the apes as proved as that he descent from a particular type of fish. You see, there are a lot of theories of evolution around.

So obviously that guy who wrote that "liberal" stuff must be as ignorant as the bigots who are irritated by reading his "findings".

Kate
05-08-2004, 23:03
spyretto, obviously, you're not very well informed on evolution. :p Humans did not rise from fish, so to speak.

spyretto
05-08-2004, 23:10
And what makes you think that they rose from the apes then? I thought that theory was so passe; already.

Kate
05-08-2004, 23:15
spyretto, there is lots of fossil and molecular evidence. :) You should read Scientific American sometimes, before it's banned by Bush.

spyretto
05-08-2004, 23:29
I don't believe in those theories in that sense. If Man evolved from the ape, why wasn't a different species evolved into something similar, why don't we have intelligent lizards or cats?

I think that Darwin was referring to changes within the same species, in order to adapt to changes in their enviroment, and that can occur over several thousands of years.

thegurgi
05-08-2004, 23:39
well spyretto, during the precambian eon, there wasn't any land creatures... they may not be what we consider fish, many of them were as simple as krill and other 1 celled organisms. Then there was a mass extinction, the largest in the worlds history, as much as we can gather, Then comes the eon we're from... the world started from these celled organisms and developed as they needed to where they would be, into lizards, amphibians, mammals, fish and birds. The mammals developed into their own separate species. Now to say that we are descendents of Apes can seem a bit far fetched... but we are the descendants of a creature called the Australopithicus, which was Ape-Like, but the biggest difference between IT and Apes was the way that it's spinal cord connected to it's skull. In fact, it's one of those things that separate us from the Apes, and our CONTROL of the opposable thumb :: Apes have opposable thumbs, they just can't move them like we do, they can't touch each separate finger with their thumb, for example :: we aren't really the decendents of any kind of fish... and the reason that we are more developed then, say a cat, was because our species needed to evolve that way. Cats are as intelligent as they need to be, :: and perfect if you ask me :: ....

and yes, Kat a theory must have some facts but it's not completely to FACTUAL status, but a fact is undisputable. And i'm sorry, but evolution is VERY disputable :: haven't you noticed? ::... at least to some people.

Kate
06-08-2004, 00:08
spyretto, because lizards and cats don't need to be as intelligent as we are to survive in their habitat. If we had the adaptions of a cat, we won't need our brain to protect us. Our brain is our only weapon, that's why we evolved it to this extent. To be honest, I'm rather dissapointed by your ignorance. You don't even know level one biology. :(

thegurgi, there were no birds before dinosaurs went extinct. ;) Birds evolved from dinosaurs. :D

but we are the descendants of a creature called the Australopithicus, which was Ape-Like, but the biggest difference between IT and Apes was the way that it's spinal cord connected to it's skull.

True, but not very well structured as an arguement. Every animal's spinal chord is connected to their skull. Duuuuh. What made Australopithecines different is that their spinal chord connected to the skull underneath it. Australopithecines' foramen magnum's position has moved to be positioned underneath the skull to support bipedalism. In other animals the forman magnum is positioned behind the skull.

And evolution is not disputable, if a person if well informed on evolution he will think again before rejecting it.

goku
06-08-2004, 00:20
The thing is it that scientists can't claim that evolution has been happening all this time in the way we can on other facts. Goku is right, it's rather arrogant to say so... and they can't claim it to be a fact, i know they want to. I believe that Evolution is a fact, but that's all we can really say.
Yes, you understand. Everything in the universe is relative. Anyone is welcome to believe whatever the would like to believe, but just because a larger group supports a theory, it does not make it any more true.

I don't believe in such a thing as undisputable facts. Everything can be disputed. Such as:
By the way, two interesting FACTS:

1). Champanzees and humans share 99% of genes. Only 1% of our genetic material is different.
We don't know 100% that genes create what we look like. We may be completely off, looking in the wrong area... Scientists do their job by attempting to explain what's around us. A lot of us presume whatever they say to be a fact. I was wondering about this fish theory. If all the scientists from the start had theorized that we came from fish, it would be supported like the monkey theory now, and coming from apes would sound ridiculous. Or maybe not. That's the immense size of science. We cannot look at just one path. Or two. A lot of our speculation can come from our imagination. There are infinite possibilities of what occured to create us. Yet only one truth. Are we here? Are we seeing chimps and hedgehogs and finches, or are they simulated programs like in the Matrix (cheesy cliché :p , but it presents the point of questioning our reality). Science for me, and it might be different for everybody, is about thinking outside of the box, raising more questions than answers, and questing for a truth impossible to find. Everything is what you believe it to be.

luxxi
06-08-2004, 00:21
To me, evolution seems as shaky as religion and the "fact" that Man has descented from the apes as proved as that he descent from a particular type of fish. You see, there are a lot of theories of evolution around.

From what I remember humans and apes developed from same ancestor. Not human from apes.

:newyear:

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 00:23
Kat, i said "because of the WAY that it's spinal chord is connected to the skull" not because it's connected to the skull ... "the WAY"

and you're right, i made that mistake of mentioning birds,

but people will dispute Evolution if they refuse to believe, a fact HAS to be completely, utterly undisputable... i'm sorry, but's the way that i and all of my science teachers have taught me how to be... I believe that Evolution is fact, but that's me... because In my head there is no dispute.... but EVOLUTION IS DISPUTABLE because i'm sure that only 1/3 of the world REALLY believes in it.... but EVERY educated person believes that the world is Round: Fact, the earth revolves around the Sun: Fact.... evolution, sorry, no, not a fact... theory.

I'm just saying that to some people it's a theory, and because of that large group of people who see at as one makes not a fact...

some people aren't convinced of the Principles of Faunal Succession....

ahhh, the Paradigms of Geologic Time, that takes me back...

Goku, there are undisputable Facts, like "The Earth Has Life On It" ... "It gets light from the sun" ... laddy da... sure they are simple. But i mean, it's a Fact that I have a computer, and no one can dispute that :D :: i'm being facetious a the moment ::

spyretto
06-08-2004, 00:23
spyretto, because lizards and cats don't need to be as intelligent as we are to survive in their habitat. If we had the adaptions of a cat, we won't need our brain to protect us. Our brain is our only weapon, that's why we evolved it to this extent. To be honest, I'm rather dissapointed by your ignorance. You don't even know level one biology. :(

thegurgi, there were no birds before dinosaurs went extinct. ;) Birds evolved from dinosaurs. :D



True, but not very well structured as an arguement. Every animal's spinal chord is connected to their skull. Duuuuh. What made Australopithecines different is that their spinal chord connected to the skull [/b]underneath[/b] it. Australopithecines' foramen magnum's position has moved to be positioned underneath the skull to support bipedalism. In other animals the forman magnum is positioned behind the skull.


And evolution is not disputable, if a person if well informed on evolution he will think again before rejecting it.

Huh? You know it's more likely that species extinct before evolving into something else, kat. :p
Do you people really believe that we had to evolve from the australopithecus into the human being to survive in our changing habitat? Religion makes more sense to me than that. I would expect a more plausible explanation, Do you simply suggest that the ape lost its physical ability to survive in its habitat and so it had to develop its intelligence?
Anybody else thinking that the theory of evolution as such is make-believe? Here something more to ponder about:

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/evofacts.htm

In that respect I prefer religion.

haku
06-08-2004, 00:30
We don't really descend from Apes, but Hominids and Apes descend from the same Primates. Genetics proves without a doubt this relation.

If i remember correctly, Hominids actually have one less chromosome than Primates, one of our chromosome results from the merging of two chromosomes that exist in Primates. It is believed that several million years ago a female Primate was born with this chromosomic abnormality (it is highly unlikely that such a chromosomic accident would occur in more than one individual), this abnormality was reinforced in the descendants of this female. Breeding between "regular" Primates and "mutated" Primates became impossible, only the mating of two "mutated" Primates would give a viable birth, therefore reinforcing again the mutation. Those "mutated" Primates are what we call today the Hominid family, it originated from one single female who was born with a chromosomic abnormality (this theory is sometimes called the "Eve theory" like Kate said).

It is believed today that genetic and chromosomic mutations are the main way species evolve and new species are created.


I also wanted to say that you can actually observe evolution in the growth of Primate fetuses, it's like watching a summary of billions of years of evolution. During its first weeks a Primate fetus is very similar to a fish fetus, then it is very similar to a reptile fetus, then it takes the form of a lower mammal fetus (like a rodent for example), and finally it takes the characteristics of a Primate.

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 00:33
i don't understand why it can't be both... if god created man in his image, maybe god is evolving with us... as the world expands creatures have to adapt... because God is adapting to deal with all of us... haha

well, the thing about the Australopithecines. they had to adapt to escape from pray, then we had to adapt to weather as we travelled and then how to deal with the problems that we came across and all that other junk... haha

luxxi
06-08-2004, 00:33
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/evofacts.htm

In that respect I prefer religion.

1. Evolution Has Never Been Observed and Evolution Is Not A "Fact"

Viruses and hedgehogs. While virus' ecolution/adaptation was observed hedgehogs' is still in process.

2. No Genuine, Clear-cut, Undisputed Transitional Form Has Ever Been Found in the Fossil Record.

Not necessary. Did we ever found single compelte skeleton of dinosaurs? AFAIK no. So it's quite possible a lot of stuff is missing and can't be found.

3. No "Missing Link" Between Ape and Man Has Ever Been Found.

Didn't humans and apes evolved from same ancestor, not humans from apes themselves? And examples he makes are considered humans, not apes.

4. Many Evolutionists Have Admitted that the Fossil Record Contradicts the Theory of Evolution

Interestingly quotes supporting this are not from books written after 1970s. I wonder why.... :rolleyes:

and that Science Has Been Unable to Duplicate Evolution Even in Highly Controlled Circumstances in Sophisticated Laboratories.

Didn't they say that evolution can't be observed? How can you recreate something you can't even observe? :spy: Can you even tell if you recreated it (or didn't) if you can't see it? :spy:

:newyear:

Kate
06-08-2004, 00:34
goku, We don't know 100% that genes create what we look like. I give up on you, goku. It's a pity that we don't have any biology majors on this forum to back me up. I can't lecture you on the first two years of biology, can I? Cuz clearly, you have no idea what your talking about. You don't know what genes are, or how they work. As much as I would like to sit here and explain, I can't. Go to the library and read a few book. I recommend "Biology" by Campbell and Reece.

spyretto, Huh? You know it's more likely that species extinct before evolving into something else, kat. Yes, I do. Otherwise this world would be filled with all kinds of bacteria.

Do you people really believe that we had to evolve from the australopithecus into the human being to survive in our changing habitat? Yes. And if you read a little more on the subject, you would too. I've really underestimated some people knowledge of the world here. READ, people. READ! There's information out there. I'm tired of this never ending ignorance. Take a biology class in Uni, for your own sakes.

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 00:36
yes, Kat, everyone should take a Biology Course... and a Geology course! It's fascinating!! REALLY!

and Goku, i think you're brilliant, you see things from a perspective of complete subjectivity :: or so it appears ::

spyretto
06-08-2004, 00:42
i don't understand why it can't be both... if god created man in his image, maybe god is evolving with us... as the world expands creatures have to adapt...

well, the thing about the Australopithecines. they had to adapt to escape from pray, then we had to adapt to weather as we travelled and then how to deal with the problems that we came across and all that other junk... haha

In that case they would adapt physically to their benefit, like for example, a lizard changing its color or developing stronger limbs or something, not become more vulnerable, then having to develop its intelligence to such an extent as to evolve to the Man we know today.
Animals don't even have the means and the capacity of communicating beyond a basic level, let alone develop the intelligence of a human being.

There's no explanation about these things, because life started has from something that we can't explain because we simply don't know. That's where God comes about, in whatever form it exists.

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 00:44
well... mutation... that's the thing we haven't mentioned yet, mutation...

it's not something that just happens, it's slow, come on Spyretto! didn't you see X-Men!?!

luxxi
06-08-2004, 00:46
There's no explanation about these things, because life started has from something that we can't explain because we simply don't know. That's where God comes about, in whatever form it exists.

Tell me which Creationist theory is correct. Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Animist? Native American? Or any other since it seems to me every religion has their own theory about how world and life was created. So which one is it and why?

:newyear:

spyretto
06-08-2004, 00:48
lol, I don't read to read about something that makes no sense. If God makes no sense to you, then biology and the theory of evolution makes no sense to me. Animals are not more intelligent now that they used to be millions of years ago. Because they lack the capacity to develop intelligence, and they always did; while man does not.

There's no real link between the australopithecus and homo sapiens, other than it physically resembled Man. We can't explain Man's cognitive development in that way, and we never will, otherwise we would have by now.

If that makes me an ignorant in your eyes, so be it. :coctail:

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 00:50
oh wow Spryetto, i can't wait to see what Kat has to say about THAT!

spyretto
06-08-2004, 00:52
Tell me which Creationist theory is correct. Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Animist? Native American? Or any other since it seems to me every religion has their own theory about how world and life was created. So which one is it and why?

:newyear:

Well, obviously none, that doesn't deny the existence of God though.

goku
06-08-2004, 01:11
goku, I give up on you, goku. It's a pity that we don't have any biology majors on this forum to back me up. I can't lecture you on the first two years of biology, can I? Cuz clearly, you have no idea what your talking about. You don't know what genes are, or how they work. As much as I would like to sit here and explain, I can't. Go to the library and read a few book. I recommend "Biology" by Campbell and Reece.
Kate Kate.. I give up on you! I understand exactly what you are talking about. I do know what genes are. It's you. You are too single minded. Maybe it was the fact that you're a biology major. Just sit for one second and think, what if that wasnt true. From there it's all up to you. But some people can't think that. And thats all right, I just tend not to get along too well with them. Just challenge your mind, challenge you and your professor's ideas. Regardless of what you believe, consider alternatives.

I haven't even said it yet lol, but I believe it or not believe in evolution. I am not closed-minded though.

There's no explanation about these things, because life started has from something that we can't explain because we simply don't know. That's where God comes about, in whatever form it exists. That's exactly right. We simply don't know, that's where the possibilities start.

and Goku, i think you're brilliant, you see things from a perspective of complete subjectivity :: or so it appears ::thegurgi, I love you! :gigi: You're a bright one yourself.:yes:

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 01:15
goku, just a question.... are you agnostic? i'm just curious

from that site that Spyretto posted:
One is reminded of Sir Isaac Newton's model of our solar system that he had built for an atheist friend of his. Newton had a friend who was an atheist. For his friend's sake, Newton had a small-scale model of our solar system constructed. He then invited his friend over for dinner. When the friend saw the finely built model of the solar system, he asked Newton who had made it. Newton replied, "Nobody." Shocked, his friend retorted, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this." Newton answered, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it has now." Newton's friend was insulted, saying, "You must think I'm a fool!" Newton then drove home his point: This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?

oh, the brilliance...

goku
06-08-2004, 01:37
thegurgi, yes and no. I guess it depends on your definition of God. The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. If this is true, how did the universe have the matter it holds now in the first place? I believe there is some maker or makers of our universe. But I am not a religious person by any means.

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 01:43
well agnostism has nothing to do with the definition with God, agnostism is the belief that there is no way of knowing if anything such as God exists... so they just kind of don't really think about it. In sense i'm kind of agnostic, but i like Thinking about it. I find it fun

As for Kansas, they are undoing that law about Creation, so the people have spoken and Evolution Theory Study will return to schools in Kansas...

spyretto
06-08-2004, 01:55
Agnosticism is not the word. Yes, there must be some makers out there, and it makes more sense to me that man fell from out of space - rather than "evolving" from some primordial ape ;)

That's why I always preferred astronomy to biology ;)

Kate
06-08-2004, 02:09
spyretto, Animals don't even have the means and the capacity of communicating beyond a basic level, let alone develop the intelligence of a human being.
Neither did we a million years ago. :) Evolution is a slow process. Obviously, hominids with larger brains had a better success rate in survival then we did. And slowly, VERY slowly, through thousands of generations we developed a larger brain. Look, you obviously have NO IDEA what evolution is. And you obviously are underinformed on human evolution. Please, read Scientific American. There's a special edition on the internet that talks about human evolution. I have the articles, I'll see if Igor will agree to upload them for us.

goku, Just sit for one second and think, what if that wasnt true. Read the experiments that PROOVED the genes tranfer hereditary information. It was prooven, like, 30 years ago. I have to run to the lecture, I'm already 10 minutes late. I'll post the proof when I come back home. See ya shortly.

haku
06-08-2004, 02:14
oh, the brilliance...
Not so much.

The prime characteristic of an artifact made by an intelligent being is that it is clearly artificial, it is made up of straight lines, regular curves, perfect angles, etc.

When you look at the solar system it is clearly not artificial and not made by intelligent beings. If it had been made by intelligent beings all the planets would be perfect spheres of the same size (or with a logical progression in sizes) rotating on the same ecliptic plane.

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 02:16
haku, i was talking about the Point he made about Atheism, NOT the solar system... but the solar system makes perfect sense, especially the sizes and the matter of things... at least to me <--- used to be an astronomy geek :)

oh, and if i were to create something like a solar system, i wouldn't make all the planets the same size, or the eliptical movements the same or create any kind of "order" even though there is an order to the solar system... maybe god is just as quirky as I am. In fact, if God exists in the way that many people think he does, he works very much like an Artist does :D ... one of the really smart ones.

haku
06-08-2004, 02:32
haku, i was talking about the Point he made about Atheism, NOT the solar system...
Well, me too. :) His point is since an atheist refuses to believe that a model of the solar system was made by no one, it is stupid of him to refuse to believe that the real solar system was made by someone (god).

But from an atheist point of view it's in fact perfectly logical to believe that an obviously artificial artifact was made by someone, and that an obviously natural occurrence like the solar system was made by no one.

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 02:34
spyretto, you make a good point...

it's really up to whoever of what they want to believe... what we have to begin to realise is that everyone is different and also that the past before written history isn't anything we'll know AS a fact... and somethings after it too.

I believe what i want, you believe what you want, and we should respect each others beliefs as opposed to trying to change each others minds :D hehehe

russkayatatu
06-08-2004, 02:48
I hardly have any time right now - no time to comment on all the ideas here, I mean :p - but I'd like to return to the original news for a minute.

First of all, thegurgi, Plessy v. Ferguson was a famous case that went to the US Supreme Court in 1896, where it established that "separate" facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional as long as they were "equal." It was overturned in 1954 in the Brown v. The Board of Education case. It has nothing to do with evolution; it's more about civil rights.

I think maybe you're thinking of the Scopes Monkey Trial, which was a setback for anti-evolution groups in America although it didn't end in a real precedent for law. Several states had enacted laws prohibiting evolution from being taught in public schools in 1925: for example, the one for Tennessee: here (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm).

Read all about the Scopes Monkey Trial - which btw was made into a movie, maybe some of you have seen it - here (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm).

Fundamentalist crusades did not start with Bush, let's not get carried away - I know practically no one in America knows America's history but I didn't realize that was true of other countries too :p

Kansas has been a battleground for what kind of "beginning" is taught in schools for years. I'm looking to see what's happened recently so that katbeidar brought it up, but maybe I'm blind, I can't find anything. Anyway, in 1999 "a decision ... by the Kansas Board of Education to delete the teaching of evolution from the state's science curriculum [ ] angered the mainstream science community in the United States," as you can read in this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/12/kansas.evolution.flap/). The webpage Kate cited, the Church of Reality one, was last modified in 2003.

I also found information saying that Kansas REVERSED their 1999 legislation:

Can science conquer Kansas?

UPDATED 21 FEB 2001: Evolution is back in Kansas, where the state board of education reversed a 1999 decision that made teaching evolution by natural selection optional. Charles Darwin may sleep better -- or evolve into a frog for all we know -- to hear that the board, by a 7-3 vote, essentially required the teaching of evolution, much to the despair of creationists but the delight of scientists. The vote reflected electoral repudiation of board members who opposed teaching of the theory, a bedrock of biology. Two other fundamental scientific theories, cosmology (the origin and fate of the universe), and plate tectonics (the movement of vast chunks of the Earth), were also restored to the classroom.

http://whyfiles.org/095evolution/

Did they really reverse it back again? That would be pretty stupid :spy:

Well anyway, for those who are interested, here (http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0712-07.htm) is another site that gives more detail on other states and also on what happened in Kansas after the 1999 ruling.

I think the American school system in general is a disgrace, and the way science is taught, most kids will just substitute "evolution" for "God": like Richard Feynman said, you stick in a word, and it doesn't tell you anything about what you know; you don't have to know anything. What made us the way we are? God made us the way we are. Evolution made us the way we are. No difference in understanding ... they're just words - that's the way it's taught in most of American's schools anyway. ;)

As for fundamentalists, you had William Jennings Bryan in 1925; you had Hollywood making "The Ten Commandments" and "Ben-Hur" and everyone flocking to see these Christian movies long before "The Passion of the Christ," so it seems that puritanism dies hard. Most of the Founding Fathers would be disgusted at our debates over displaying the Ten Commandments and putting "In God We Trust" on our money ... which as I understand it was a McCarthyist, anti-communist idea ... since they were atheists and drafted some extraordinary documents, the most radical and forward of any in the 18th century.

As Ben Franklin said, though, every republic eventually becomes a tyranny. :D So I guess we'll see :blabla:

Bush will never ban Scientific American, though ... we don't ban anything in America; we just repress it. Like radio stations refusing to play the Dixie Chicks and the New York Times ignoring Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal ... and that interesting book I found the other day, The Holocaust Industry ... I had NEVER heard of this book before, but I heard it was much-discussed on the other side of the Atlantic. ;)

p.s. no sweat, Kate, I just wanted to make sure everyone got that you took it from somewhere and who should get the credit ... Igor, I thought, would like that :)

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 02:52
SCOPES!! that's right! ok... thanks for that... that was the one i was thinking about :: i got really messed up with all those 'important' cases ::

and russakayatatu, you seem to have a good grasp on our legal system to have remembered all of that... or did you do some research before posting?

spyretto
06-08-2004, 03:02
good point, thegurgi

Though I believe that we exist in this particular moment in time but as time is infinite and space ever-expanding, that amounts to very little ;)

russkayatatu
06-08-2004, 03:04
thegurgi, I always check up before I post ... or usually ... :coctail:

But Plessy v. Ferguson and the Scopes Monkey Trial, I already knew what the cases were about, I just got more of the details - dates and things - before I posted.

I only know the really major cases, I think; I was never that interested in American history and am only recently starting to be :hooligan:

haku
06-08-2004, 03:04
it was a McCarthyist, anti-communist idea ... since they were athiests
Hehe, yeah, i remember, when i was a teenager and the cold war was still active, that was one the things that had me torn. :D I've always been pretty liberal on the economic side and i felt close to the US for that, but i couldn't stand those god preaching american politicians. The atheist and egalitarian principles of communist regimes were actually closer of what i thought in that specific area (i obviously did not agree with the oppressive part of it), not to mention that those principles were related to the French revolution which is essentially atheist as well.

spyretto
06-08-2004, 03:21
Brilliant :rolleyes:

Now we finally know the history behind banning the teaching of "evolution by way of natural selection" in Kansas schools.

We can now talk about "The evolution of traditional costumes in rural Uzbekistan". Not to sound disrespectful but the world does not evolve around the United States of America - as yet.

russkayatatu
06-08-2004, 03:32
No, of course it doesn't, but it's the topic of this thread, right, and the precursor if not the reason for all this debate? "Evolutionary Biology Replaced by Bible Studies in American Schools"? Which is not exactly true - if it is even true at all :spy: - which I doubt :spy: - although it's a good headline. Kate, you're reminding me more and more of a politican every day :D

Thank God the world doesn't revolve around the United States.

Not to sound disrespectful. :blabla:

Kate
06-08-2004, 03:34
russkayatatu, :D The thread has turned into a more of "Evoluton vs. Creationism". :gigi:

spyretto
06-08-2004, 03:46
yeah, isn't it better? :gigi:

But then again, Biblical Studies is a whole subject in the curriculum, while "evolution" just a chapter of the science book. Right? So Biblical studies win every time :eek:

marina
06-08-2004, 03:48
Not to stir the things up ...but I can see that goku has a point.
Evolution itself doesn't explane how is everything started . So.. billions of galaxies in a universe existed for billions of years ...What was before that ? Huge bang they say ?
The reason ? Just black hole and nothing and then bang and Universe expanded to billions and billions of galaxies . Who is creator of that all ?....Or was it forever , no beginning no end. Timeless.
And more close to our planet..hmm..DNA....that is chemical elements that rearranged itself in a chain of thousands and thousands combinations in such order that not only created life but also got a chance to reproduce ! You are really have to believe that they strike that lucky. Stilll possible considering how long it took. Just like the Lottery , you never win but if you play 20 millions of years or more , you can hit the jackpot :D
Can we create from neorganic elements organic life now ? No , we can not . Well...apart from my fridge (when I leave food for far too long :D ) We just simply have to believe that everything happend that way. No proof .
I don't believe what Bible say , don't get me wrong . My point is that scientific explanation of our existence has no less staff than Bible that you simply have to believe .

russkayatatu
06-08-2004, 03:58
Nah, "Biblical Studies" is not a whole subject, at least not where I went to school (Texas). In fact I don't think it's part of the curriculum at all. In high school we had a class where we discussed religions, and our teachers were VERY VERY careful to make SURE we knew that they weren't trying to convert us to Islam, or Judiasm, or Hinduism, or Buddhism; all we were going to do was READ about them, you know, like students and scholars should be able to do, as they said :gigi:

So katbeidar, what were you talking about when you said Bible Studies Replaced Evolutionary Biology in American Schools? If I can ask; I think it's on topic.

And this statement: Since Bush became president, Bible became a part of school education system, and evolution is "optional". Like you said, what? I don't think it's accurate. I found it totally puzzling. :greedy:

One very last statement about American education: the Reverend E.W. Grinfield, as quoted by Gore Vidal: "'We inculcate a strong attachment to the constitution, SUCH AS IT IS; we teach them to love and revere our establishments in Chuch and State, even WITH ALL THEIR REAL OR SUPPOSED IMPERFECTIONS; and we are far more anxious to make them good and contented citizens, than to fit them for noisy patriots, who would perhaps destroy the constitution whilst pretending to correct it.'" Vidal: "There, in one sentence, is the principle on which American public education is based."

But you're right, I'll stop talking about the US; that's more than enough talk about it anyway :p :eek:

haku
06-08-2004, 04:05
I just wanted to add that besides the different stages a fetus goes through during its growth, we have another proof of the evolution of species in our own bodies, it's called the appendix.

The appendix is the remnant of an ancient organ, a second stomach specialized in digesting leaves and other "green stuff". This organ existed in ancient Primates that were essentially vegetarians, it got atrophied in Hominids who started to eat much more diverse food including meat and no longer needed it.
Homo Sapiens never possessed that organ, it had already gotten totally atrophied before our species even appeared. So if the Homo Sapiens species was "created", why do we have the remnant of an organ that was used by ancient Primate species which, according to religion, we do not descend from.

Kate
06-08-2004, 04:21
marina, evolution does not cover Big Bang. Evolution only concerns the living organisms. The oldest fossils of cyanobasteria date back to 4 billions of years ago. There's a whole chain of fossil evidence that supports the evolution of that cyanobacteria into photosynthetic bacteria and so on. Bible has no fossil evidence no nothing. It's book that contradicts itself in many places. Evolution HAS EVIDENCE!!!

By the way, why do human babies have gill slits in the early stages of development? ;) Evolution, perhaps? Cuz why would God create useless parts in a human baby? And what about those vestigial limbs in whales? Evolution has evidence that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals. Bible just says god created them.

By the way, haku, do you think your server can suppose about 4MBs of evolution related Scientific American articles? They are in pdf file extansion with pictures and so on. Some of the people can really use some reading here. And I'm sure others will be interested too. PM me, ok?

spyretto
06-08-2004, 04:38
marina,
By the way, why do human babies have gill slits in the early stages of development? ;) Evolution, perhaps?

Gill slits?, huh? So it is true, we have evolved from fish after all :rolleyes:

haku
06-08-2004, 04:45
And what about those vestigial limbs in whales? Evolution has evidence that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals.
Marine mammals are an obvious proof of evolution, and again you can see the process they went through by looking at the development of their fetuses.

In its early stage, a marine mammal fetus has gills (like all mammal fetuses) but then those gills are replaced by lungs! If this animal had been created, why would its gills be replaced by lungs since gills would allow it to breathe in water? A marine mammal fetus also grows four legs at some point and then those legs are replaced by fins for the forelegs and get atrophied for the rearlegs. Again it makes no sense to have that kind of mutations if this animal was created to live in water. What we are witnessing during the growth of this marine mammal fetus is simply a summary of how its species has evolved in the course of millions of years. First a fish (the gills), then a reptile, then a land mammal, and finally (for now) a marine mammal.

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 05:14
Gill slits?, huh? So it is true, we have evolved from fish after all

i thought the gill slits were from being inside the womb... don't we all have gills for a bit? ok, haku already talks about this...

See, i'm getting personal here, but i think i'm a bit of evolution. Since i was born without 50 percent of the cartilidge than most humans in my legs and hips and my other joints... it just wasn't ever there, and i can do crazy things with my limbs [plus i fell apart] ... it's like Natures great expirement, evolution... "Let's see what happens when we do this to this creature, and this to another... will it survive in the world? those that mutate will either thrive or die. In nature... i'd be dead... really, so that's natures way of saying "no, that wasn't a good idea..." haha. I see it a lot with kids that it almost seems like it was just a strange expirement of nature, "lets see what happens when i do this"... but i don't think it's a very "conscious experiment" on it's sake... but we see it all a lot... and i think that itself is proof that we change... will my children :: if i have them :: be as super flexible as i am? That's really whether or not it's a dominant gene or that of their mother is stronger... but that's getting into genetics.... fascinating stuff

goku
06-08-2004, 05:21
goku, Read the experiments that PROOVED the genes tranfer hereditary information. It was prooven, like, 30 years ago. I have to run to the lecture, I'm already 10 minutes late. I'll post the proof when I come back home. See ya shortly.
Kate, you're still not understanding, maybe you won't. What I'm saying is no matter what you believe, just try to imagine what you believe is not true. Even if you are so sure it is, you still keep believing your truth, but for this one moment believe in something else. And right there you have found all our differences.

About the "inaccuracies" of the creator(s), like the gills, or not perfect planets, maybe it was part of thier plan. Maybe they said fcuk it whatever. Maybe they're not perfect. There are many possible explanations (infinite). However, I do not believe humans were created by the makers; instead it was the universe. What happened after the supposed Big Bang they just let it take place.

spyretto
06-08-2004, 05:38
As I said before, evolution may explain the physiological developement of some species - well, I have many objections but lets suppose for the sake of the argument that it's a perfect explanation about everything.
It can't explain the cognitive development of humans. How - out of all the species that were and are constantly evolving - only the humans, the apes' descentants evolved into advanced species that are able to discuss the things we are today.
Adapting into the changing environment is merely laughable as an explanation. Kate says that through millions of years the brain increased its capacity - well , excuse me? :rolleyes: that doesn't make sense Kate.
We're talking the ability to speak and communicate in sophisticated ways here. Animals have not evolved in that respect, they remain as limited as they were millions of years ago.

It's not a case of religion v evolution, it's a case of evolution as a theory trying to explain human development and falling short - by a long way.

I apologise for repeating myself. :D

haku
06-08-2004, 05:39
i thought the gill slits were from being inside the womb... don't we all have gills for a bit? ok, haku already talks about this...
No, it's not because of the womb because fetuses don't breathe yet, not even with their gills.
The gills are just the remnants of very ancient organs dating from the time our ancestors were creatures living in water.
It's because when a new species appear, its DNA is not written from a blank page, its DNA is only a mutation from another older species with a tiny bit being modified. Most modern species actually have in their DNA old pieces of "code" that are totally useless to them, DNA is far from being optimized.
When a fetus grows, it follows this DNA roadmap that has been slowly written during billions of years, and it even follows pieces of code that are obsolete for the current species. This phenomenon can be observed in the fetal development of a lot of species, their fetuses grow organs or limbs in their early stage only to make them disappear in a later stage because the modern species no longer use those specific organs or limbs.

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 05:48
well a bit of a misunderstanding i had there, but you should have stopped there... the rest i already knew... haha. i know a lot about mutations and how that all works :rolleyes:

spyretto, are you asking "What makes humans" different? Well, i dunno. we just evolved differently.... it's not a matter of decision or anything... it just happens... some of it's good some of it's bad.... and i'm sure you've heard survival of the fittest...

Kat, i have a server that can support that stuff....

Kate
06-08-2004, 05:55
spyretto, we did not evolve from fish. Fish and us had a common ancestor. :rolleyes:

goku, what's the points of imagining something to be not true, if it's prooven to be true? I'm missing your point. Try to imagine that you didn't not come from a sperm and an egg fusing. You know that you did, anyway. So what's the point of lying to yourself?

Let's take Jesus for instance. He must have had 46 genes like everyone else. He was a male, thus a penis. If so, then he must have had a Y chromosome, which can only come from a father. A Y chromosome is made up of material, it has mass. Thus, God must have mass, and 46 genes in order to fertilise Mary. So, if he lives up there, why hasn't gravitation acted on him and he didn't fall down once? I'm missing something here, too. Face it, please, God is a made up person used to control the minds of people during the middle ages, and unfortunately Bush is trying to use the technique on Americans now, in 21st century of all times. Critianity has been trying to evolve with science, but it just simply cannot keep up with the amount of knowledge uncovered every day. Those who believe in God are underinformed, ignorant persons. No offense, but that's MY honest opinion.

spyretto, Adapting into the changing environment is merely laughable as an explanation. Kate says that through millions of years the brain increased its capacity - well , excuse me? that doesn't make sense Kate. We're talking the ability to speak and communicate in sophisticated ways here. Animals have not evolved in that respect, they remain as limited as they were millions of years ago. Have you heard of Natural selection? Read up. I'm e-mailing some articles to Haku as I write this. Please download them as soon as he provides the link, you owe it to your brain, it was developed to contain knowledge. :heh:

haku, I must say I'm very impressed. You are obviously a very well read person. :done: Your arguements are great. And you know heaps about evolution and stuff. My respect. Check your e-mail in about 30 minutes.

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 06:03
Kate, Goku just wants you to see things from OTHER peoples views. You are being extremely myopic to the other side.

You need to realize that some people just DON'T want to think about this kind of thing, they believe in the bible and religions because it's EASY to. And you're literally hurting them trying to change their minds and you AREN'T going to be able to anything about it... seriously, i've tried in the past. I know i don't make good arguements on the computer cause i SUCK at writing, but when i can talk out loud i'm really good.

And Bush didn't outlaw the Evolution Teaching in Kansas, the PEOPLE of Kansas did... and then they realised how dumb it was and then undid the bad.

Kate
06-08-2004, 06:07
you're literally hurting them trying to change their minds and you AREN'T going to be able to anything about it... Unfortunately, you are very right. :( Hopefully, ignorance will go extinct with time.

Bush expressed his views against evolution being tought in school. I don't know when exactly, but I remember watching it. I wouldn't be suprised if he wanted people in America to be underinformed, cuz they'll be easier to scare and control. :(

spyretto
06-08-2004, 06:12
Still Kate, you read as single-minded and ignorant as those "underinformed, ignorant" persons. God did not make Man in his image in body but in spirit, as you very well know. :D
After all God is not matter, it is spirit. Your assumptions sound every bit as ignorant as my assumptions about that amazing theory of evolution ( the answer to all our questions - I suppose. )

Well, fine, I will read those articles you suggest, and I hope they make sense. I also reserve my right to not believe them ;)

Yeah , just like thegurgi said. Bush has nothing to do with anything, leave him out of it. You don't have to drag your anti-Bush views into anything you write, do you? :eek:

thegurgi
06-08-2004, 06:19
i'm sensing a bit of "stupid americans" coming about to... like we'd all be so easily acceptant of Bush's policies? 1/2 of this country is just as Anti-Bush as the rest of the world and i think that should be made clear.

goku
06-08-2004, 06:24
katbeidar, we imagine because some of us think outside of the box, think not why something is a way but why something isn't another way. We don't know anything. You may think that you know humans come from a sperm and an egg, but what happens when a deity comes down saying "nope, I made you, that's not how it works". The egg and sperm was your explanation in this case, your truth, but it was wrong. Your assumption that you knew thats how humans reproduce was incorrect. Your facts can always be refuted by someone or something more powerful, thus your truths do not apply to everybody, however they are correct to you. That is what I mean. We can't take something for granted as a fact, because most likely, it isn't, and we won't ever really know if it is or isn't.
you owe it to your brain, it was developed to contain knowledge. I think this is the difference between you and I. You say you are certain our brains were developed to contain knowledge. I say that's a possibility, but it's not the only one.
Your assumptions sound every bit as ignorant as my assumptions about that amazing theory of evolutionThat is how subjective these things are.

On religion and politics, don't forget I did major as political science. God was used long before the middle ages; monotheism was created thousands of years before Christ's arrival, and before that was polytheism (a belief in many gods). The religious institutions quickly became powerful institutes in the government, in power long before the Egyptians, where human sacrafices were carried out to please gods, and life centered around religion. After all, what's more important than pleasing an all powerful god who could strike you down at any moment? Yes, during the middle ages the Church was as powerful as ever, waging crusades and carrying out excommunications. However, to say Bush is using Christianity to incite Americans is far-fetched. A very long stretch could be made that he uses his religous beliefs to create support from certain voting demographics, but he certainly did not use that as his reason to war with Iraq or Afghanistan. And that is an extreme opinion and today's politically correct society, but you're right it is yours, and you have a right to it.

And Jesus was a prophet, he did not have to have anything.:heh:

Kate
06-08-2004, 06:40
goku, if Adam and Eve were created by God, how come they are always picture with belly buttons? And your arguements are going way over my head now. We went beyond facts, and a view not based on facts is not my familiar territory. I will not believe in God unless there are facts to prove his exastance. All I have are facts that prove evolution and disprove God.

You'll have to excuse my views if they offend. I'm a teenger, and I'm subject to maximalism. :p

luxxi
06-08-2004, 09:27
Well, obviously none, that doesn't deny the existence of God though.

Ask creationists and they will say it does. They claim that by denying part of Bible (Genesis) you deny all of it.

:newyear:

haku
06-08-2004, 12:54
First article from katbeidar :)

An Ancestor to Call Our Own (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/tatu/An Ancestor to Call Our Own.pdf)

Kate
06-08-2004, 12:55
haku, thank you! :D *big hug for haku*

haku
06-08-2004, 13:06
You're welcome. :D

All the articles from katbeidar. :rose:

An Ancestor to Call Our Own (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/pdf/An Ancestor to Call Our Own.pdf)
Early Hominid Fossils from Africa (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/pdf/Early Hominid Fossils from Africa.pdf)
Food for Thought (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/pdf/Food for Thought.pdf)
Once Were Cannibals (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/pdf/Once Were Cannibals.pdf)
Once We Were Not Alone (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/pdf/Once We Were Not Alone.pdf)
The Evolution of Human Birth (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/pdf/The Evolution of Human Birth.pdf)
The Multiregional Evolution of Humans (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/pdf/The Multiregional Evolution of Humans.pdf)
The Recent African Genesis of Humans (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/pdf/The Recent African Genesis of Humans.pdf)
Who Were the Neandertals (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/pdf/Who Were the Neandertals.pdf)

goku
06-08-2004, 18:46
katbeidar, alright, I'm beginning to understand you now. See it's that your facts are not my facts. I don't really believe in facts. You only believe in facts.

Thank you Kate for the articles and haku for posting them.

marina
06-08-2004, 19:14
First article from katbeidar

An Ancestor to Call Our Own


Excuse me my ignorance , what this article has to do with our katbeidar?

spyretto
06-08-2004, 21:46
Reading...

There's so much speculation, disagreement between scientists about their hominids and how could there not be? They're trying to recreate our alleged ancestors from the findings of a tooth fossil and a few toe bones :rolleyes:

While the development of the intelligent human who conquered the earth - I suppose through the makings of natural selection ;) is attributed to acquiring a larger brain. Yeah, that must be it then :(

Kate
06-08-2004, 22:18
goku, you don't believe in facts? :eek: That's the silliest thing I've heard in years. Lol.

marina, oh, they have almost nothing to do with me. I'm just a huge Scientific American fan, and I read almost every issue, and so I decided to contribute some articles for everyone to enjoy.

spyretto, of course there's disagreement, but one thing every paleoanthropologist agrees on is that somehow these screatures are connected to humans, through evidence of dentition, bone structure etc. :) Also they agree upon the age. If you think on a larger scale, the disagreements are purely in the little details. :p

spyretto
06-08-2004, 22:38
I don't want to dispute the findings, but when it comes to commonsense, it is difficult to accept that we and the chimpanzee or the gorilla had a common ancestor that was more developed than the chimpanzee or the gorilla; then some kind of diversification/evolutional process took over that allowed the hominid to go backwards in the evolutionary cycle - and become a gorilla and a chimpanzee - while another portion of the same ancestror gradually developed into human.
And all that simply because natural selection took over. What exactly is natural selection? We're not talking about a slight change here but a whole mutation from one form of species to another.

goku
06-08-2004, 22:38
katbeidar, it's more that I don't believe that we know any actual truths. I believe in many of the same probable ideas as you, I just don't accept them as fully factual. I believe there will always be something out there to refute any "fact".

Kate
06-08-2004, 22:49
spyretto, "more developed" is a relative statement. What made us so successful, our brain, might not have worked for champanzees, for example. They needed to put their energy into developing other features to help them survive in their ecological niche. Have you heard of the Gause's Principal? I quote: "no two species can exist indefinitely on a single limiting resource (aka in the same niche)". Champanzee and humans diverged to avoid competition for the same habitat, and thus developed into different species which have different "more developed" features. You probably can't do many things that a champanzee can. :) Does that mean you're less developed? No. Humans are just another mammal trying to survive on Earth. We ARE NOT special, which is what Bible teaches.

goku, but we do have evidence. Material evidence. And if you're a clear minded person, you'll see that it's pointing in one direction. Yes, there's doubt, and I doubt things when I read about new finding etc. Everyone forms their own views. But one thing is indesputable, and that's that all life on Earth had a common ancestor (whether it formed here on Earth by accidental chemical reaction, or what it was brought by a meteorite from outer space) and that chimpanzees and gorillas and other primates (including us) are related, judging from fossil and genetic evidence. Please, I beg you, give one of those articles that haku so kindly uploaded for us, a read. Please, please, please. Stop ignorance starting today. I know that's it's nicer to think that we're something special, that we'll all go to Heaven cuz God forgives all our sins (then what's Hell for, anyway?) and so on, but that's just a made up story... we need to move on from that. :done:

haku
06-08-2004, 22:51
it is difficult to accept that we and the chimpanzee or the gorilla had a common ancestor that was more developed than the chimpanzee or the gorilla; then some kind of diversification/evolutional process took over that allowed the hominid to go backwards in the evolutionary cycle - and become a gorilla and a chimpanzee - while another portion of the same ancestror gradually developed into human.
:eek: No, no, no! Modern Apes don't descend from Hominids! Apes and Hominids have a common ancestor. All Hominids (like their name indicates) are Humans.

spyretto
06-08-2004, 22:53
Not to mention, that obviously, human development has long broken that barrier of "natural selection". There's nothing natural about being able to destroy the same planet that it give birth to us. There's nothing natural in the way we pollute the planet or affecting our environment to such a degree that whole species are in the verge of exinction.
There's nothing natural about microwave overns, genetically modified foods and cloning. Am I making myself quite dramatic enough? :p

ok goku, wrong term used. That australopithecus creature - if that's our common ancestor. Is it more developed than a chipanzee, less developed or essentially a chimpanzee? :eek:

Kate
06-08-2004, 22:57
Modern Apes don't descend from Hominids! Apes and Hominids have a common ancestor. All Hominids (like their name indicate) are Humans. Exactly. :) Evolution is full of Nature's experimants, if you look at an evolutionary tree of any creature, then you'll see that more then half of it's ancesteral relatives went extict. Humans are no exception, and even though champanzees and humans might have had Sahelanthropus tchadensis (with a possibly better developed brain then chimps have today) as a common ancestor, doesn't mean that when chimps and hominids went their different ways on the evolutionary tree, chimps didn't supress their brain development in order to develop better eye sight, hearing, climbing adaptions and so on. :)

spyretto, Not to mention, that obviously, human development has long broken that barrier of "natural selection". There's nothing natural about being able to destroy the same planet that it give birth to us. There's nothing natural in the way we pollute the planet or affecting our environment to such a degree that whole species are in the verge of exinction.
There's nothing natural about microwave overns, genetically modified foods and cloning. Am I making myself quite dramatic enough? Yeah, unfortunately, that comes with a well developed brain. :(

That australopithecus creature - if that's our common ancestor. Is it more developed than a chipanzee, less developed or essentially a chimpanzee? Autralopithecus WAS NOT a chimpanzee ancestor!!!! It was an upright walking hominid! :mad: Sahelanthropus tchadensis is a possible common ancestor to chimps and hominids. Australopithecines came MUCH LATER! At least look at the evolutionary tree before you post. Oh, the ignorance. :cry:

spyretto
06-08-2004, 23:03
spyretto, "more developed" is a relative statement. What made us so successful, our brain, might not have worked for champanzees, for example. They needed to put their energy into developing other features to help them survive in their ecological niche. Have you heard of the Gause's Principal? I quote: "no two species can exist indefinitely on a single limiting resource (aka in the same niche)". Champanzee and humans diverged to avoid competition for the same habitat, and thus developed into different species which have different "more developed" features. You probably can't do many things that a champanzee can. :) Does that mean you're less developed? No. Humans are just another mammal trying to survive on Earth. We ARE NOT special, which is what Bible teaches.

Well, not to play with words, here, we obviously know what "more developed" means. I used those words on purpose, bearing in mind that with regards to the evolutional process, there's probably not "more or less", just change. However you're limiting yourself to anatomical developments, which of course wouldn't differentiate us much than the current chimpanzees or gorillas. Of course we are mammals but we also ARE special. Are you trying to say that humans are just another species living on this earth :rolleyes:

Kate
06-08-2004, 23:08
spyretto, yes, humans are just another species living on this Earth, and we happen to have a well developed brain in order to survive. Unfortunately, besides knowledge this brain also produces gibberish like religion and so on. Personally, I have nothing against God. Believe in him/her/it if you want. Just accept the fact that God didn't create us. Cuz it doesn't make any sense.

OK, let's reverse this a little bit. Provide me with evidence, fossils or otherwise, that God created us. I gave you 5 pages of evidence that we evolved from cyanobacteria, and I failed to convince you. Let's see what makes you so convince that God created us. Everything except Bible will be fine, cuz Bible is written by control-freaks 2000 years ago and I have no interest in it. Give me scientific evidence. :)

spyretto
06-08-2004, 23:16
It's ironic that to name a hominid, they chose a name that essentially means monkey, don't you think? :p

why would I provide evidence that God created us? I'm just challenging some of the theories you provided as facts here, not supporting religion.

And lets face it, we have a brain that is a lot more developed than it takes to merely survive.

haku
06-08-2004, 23:21
That australopithecus creature - if that's our common ancestor. Is it more developed than a chipanzee, less developed or essentially a chimpanzee?
Australopithecus is the direct ancestor of all Hominids but it is NOT the ancestor of modern Apes (Australopithecus was already bipedal and had several typically human characteristics). Australopithecus was more intelligent than a modern Ape.

It's the ancestor of Australopithecus which is the commom ancestor of the Ape family and the Hominid family. This common ancestor is not well known (it may be the one mentioned by Kate), but it was a rather primitive Primate living in trees and less intelligent than modern Apes. Modern Apes have also evolved when compared to this common ancestor, but of course Hominids have evolved far more greatly.

What caused the shift between the Primates that would evolve into Apes and the Primates that would evolve into Hominids is the inhabitat. Primates were living in forests everywhere in Africa, but a dramatic change of climate accured In East Africa, the forests were replaced by savannas there. The primates who were living there were forced to live in open land, without forests, this forced them to stand on their rear legs. This group of Primates evolved into Australopithecus, then Hominids.
The Primates that were living in West Africa continued to live in forests, those Primates evolved into modern Apes.

Kate
06-08-2004, 23:35
spyretto, Hominid" means "human-like". :) And our brain is just the size required to survive. It just so happens that we can pass on knowledge, and that's something Nature didn't predict, and you can say we got lucky. But if a human baby is born, and is denied knowledge of speach for 3 years or more, then the chances are he won't be able to speak at all. (This actually happened before. Saw it on 20/20.)

There's two ways humans could have come to exist. One way is evolution, supported my numerous evidence of fossils and so on; and there's creation, supported by no facts. Which do you choose to believe?

spyretto
07-08-2004, 00:07
"We got lucky" is your answer to the human condition? :eek: :bum:

Anyway, evolution is not the answer as to how life came to exist. It only goes to indicate, in very controversial and disputable ways - how humans may have come into existence - in biological terms, I suppose. Creationism seeks to give an explanation on how life came into existence. Religion asks you to take a lot of things for granted and fundamentally seems like a human creation.

It could be a bit of both. And I still recall myself saying that "we don't know".

Kate
07-08-2004, 00:31
spyretto, I gave a few theories (in this case, doubtful predictions) of how life could have initiated on Earth. Go back a few posts. ;)

And yeah, I think humans got lucky. We got our brain. It was like winning a giant lotto prize. :gigi:

goku
07-08-2004, 00:37
Everyone forms their own views. But one thing is indesputable, and that's that all life on Earth had a common ancestor (whether it formed here on Earth by accidental chemical reaction, or what it was brought by a meteorite from outer space) and that chimpanzees and gorillas and other primates (including us) are related, judging from fossil and genetic evidence. Stop ignorance starting today. I know that's it's nicer to think that we're something special, that we'll all go to Heaven cuz God forgives all our sins (then what's Hell for, anyway?) and so on, but that's just a made up story... we need to move on from that. :done:
Kate kate kate :laugh: I don't think this will ever be resolved. To me, no "fact" is indesputable. Are you staring at your monitor? Or is it a figment of your imagination? Sure, a persistant figment, as it keeps the same qualities each time, but it is possible. To me nothing is impossible. A reading is not going to change that (though I will read it since you are so persistant and haku was nice enough to do that for us). And I don't see myself as ignorant at all. In fact, you seem a little ignorant; you accept things as they are and cannot look outside of the box or question or allow for possibilities, especially on the most "factual facts".

And why do you bring God into this? When have I ever said anything about heaven or hell?

Kate
07-08-2004, 00:43
goku, you have no idea how religious I was. I refused to believe anything that disprooved God for a very long time, up until I was 14 years old. Lol. I even refused to go to restaurants that had Buddah statues in them, and most of the restaurants in Taiwan have some kind of religious idol in their main hall. :p I was such a pain to my parents. Lol. But after we came to NZ, things started changing. And the moment that I told myself that there's no Heaven, I really wanted to... I dunno... destroy myself, I suppose. It was terrible. But I got my head around it. As I'm sure all humanity will someday.

Now I hope to become genetic analyst for paleoantropologists. The more evidence we'll have, the more people will stop believing silly religious nonsense. :D

And why do you bring God into this? This is personal. Between me and "God".

goku
07-08-2004, 01:24
katbeidar, now I can understand where you are coming from. :)

Personal experiences define who we are. I haven't yet had a revelation, well one that will make me cease to believe in the endless possibilities of realities and truths, but if that comes I'll tell you and join you in paleoantropology. :p I myself had wanted for a long time to become a diplomat, to create peace in our world. But after taking a small course on aviation I realised becoming a pilot was what I wanted. A cosmonaut ultimately. I've always loved the stars, I hope to go someday.
Some of our influences may be "religous nonsense" that causes some people to believe something, but for me religion isn't involved. Which kind of got me thinking, there is a lot of people that won't change their beliefs because religion makes them feel safe, secure. Your quest is to change their minds to science and not make believe. I say let them think what they want; the futile quest for knowledge is an individual one.

Just kind of wondering, how long did you live in Russia?

Kate
07-08-2004, 01:27
I say let them think what they want; the futile quest for knowledge is an individual one. I agree. It's impossible to change people's minds, especially if the person is deeply religious. My grandma is very religious, and why would I want to burst her bubble? She's happy believing that she'll go to Heaven. I say, why not? :) As long as she is happy, I'm happy, and everyone's happy.

Just kind of wondering, how long did you live in Russia? Less then 7 years. After that I lived nearly 9 years in Taiwan, and just a bit over 3 years in New Zealand. :D

spyretto
07-08-2004, 02:09
Well, guys, you have to leave a little window open for the possibility that there might be some truth in a belief that exists ever since the beginning of time, sort of speak.


As for evolution, there's so much research to be carried out and so much evidence to be gathered, that I'm sure you'll have your hands full for the duration of your career, Kate.

One million years to create a simple tool, then another million to create another tool? Hominids migrating from Africa to China? pfff :blabla:

Kate
07-08-2004, 04:31
spyretto, actually, it took a while to create the first tool, and little less time to create the second type of tool, then the tool started flooding in, followed by the use of fire and then the agricultural evolution shortly afterwards - and it's been exponentially growing ever since. ;)

And Christianity came about only 2000 years ago, it's the youngerst of all religions. The first God was the Sun. :) And the second god was the woman.

spyretto
07-08-2004, 04:52
I'm not defending Christianity at all though...As a matter of fact I prefer the Olympian model, it's funkier :D Not to mention that they also believed in an "unknown god".

"First there was Chaos, an unordered mass of things. Then came - I suppose after a big bang ;) Gaia ( earth ), Eros ( life ) and Tartaros (the underworld ). You see even those early civilizations believed in the afterlife." :coctail:

Kate
07-08-2004, 04:54
spyretto, interesting. ;)

spyretto
07-08-2004, 04:57
Well, the Egyptians took the afterlife as seriously if not more seriously than the Greeks. And every single civilization from the beginning of human history -even primitive ones - believed in deities and the afterlife. Nothing to do with Christianity, actually :D

Doesn't that make you wonder a bit? ;)

Kate
07-08-2004, 05:24
spyretto, unfortunately, no one came back from Heaven and/or afterlife to tell us about it. So far, it's just a popular belief, cuz who wants death to be his/her END? No one. Everyone likes to believe that there's something more after death, that life is eternal. It's not. We die, we decompose, we're gone forever as an individual. All creatures on Earth are just a pile of atoms, if you will, that are functioning together. :cool:

goku
07-08-2004, 05:33
Well katbeidar, I was going to ask you what you thought happened after death, but you already answered it. The question is so open ended, it's almost impossible to answer. It'd be like if were living before the Big Bang and had no knowledge of the universe today, and someone aksed us what we thought would happen after the Big Bang. Infinite possibilities. No one has come back after death (that scientists can confirm; anyone believe in ghosts?) so no one can tell us about it. Sure, as you said Kate, one possibility is that we just die, and that's it, no more. For me it is to immense; all I can infer is that your body becomes inactive and obsolete (but who knows, maybe in a billion years our body's will take life again). Whether there is a soul, a heaven, nirvana, etc. I cannot pick any over each other. I just look at it as something must happen after death, or you won't be there to miss anything. Just think if you had to float in a black void for all eternity, how boring. :p

Kate
07-08-2004, 05:37
goku, Just think if you had to float in a black void for all eternity, how boring. There will be no black void. Your brain cells die, and they cannot process any information any more. When you are dead, you don't even realise that you are. If you do, then you're not dead. :gigi:

goku
07-08-2004, 06:13
Yea, if you were dead you wouldn't realise you had nothing to do for eternity. I was just saying imagine if that's what happened. Just dying would be ok I guess, but I mean that's it it's pretty short lived. Heaven would be alright but eternity is way too long, it would get boring, unless there was a spell where it's always fun, then it would rock. The best would be reincarnation, waking up as a new person and not remembering anything from your previous lives. You live forever, but you don't know you are, and you get different experiences. :gigi:

Kate
07-08-2004, 06:37
I think every person can die. I'll be bored in Heaven for sure. Plus, people get tired of living at some point. :)

thegurgi
07-08-2004, 06:53
goku, you said basically the thought that i have every other day... i don't like it. I always get this empty feeling...

I like the hindi way of thinking, Reincarnation leading up to Nirvana, karmic debt and all that stuff...

kishkash
07-08-2004, 07:10
...think about it scientifically...[since many of the arguments in this thread have been scientific in nature thus far]

totall energy in = total energy out = energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The theory of reincarnation supports this.

Kate
07-08-2004, 07:20
totall energy in = total energy out = energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Ok so far.

The theory of reincarnation supports this. You lost me. What? How?

goku
07-08-2004, 08:28
You lost me. What? How?
I believe kishkash is trying to say that your energy (i.e. spirit) is not destroyed after death, so it assumes another form through reincarnation. Also, since energy cannot be created, the energy present today is the same that has always been here.
Am I right?

Kate
07-08-2004, 09:05
goku, spirit is not energy. It is a reaction a brain has to different hormones. Energy is what is made in the form of ATP in mitochondria. Your spirit can be raised by drugs. Lol. And that is, the drug travels through your blood, activates receptors on the plasma membrane of your cells, causes them to start protein synthesis and make hormones or other such signalling molecules that target the brain and cause it to release endorphins and so on.

Actually, there's a really good theory, IMO, on the web. It says that for every thing there's an oppisite. Like, for a force to the left, there's a force to the right, like equilibrium. So, after big bang, there must have been two types of matter created - matter as we know it, and anti-matter. As a matter of fact, anti-matter has been produced in miniscule quantaties in Sweden. Anti-matter is basically the same as matter, expect that it's atomical structure has a negative nucleaus and positrons orbiting it. When anti-matter and matter meet, they produce large quantaties of energy, which gives potential for anti-matter to become a non-radioactive, polution-free enegry source for the future. :D

I'm not very good in physics, but I'm sure if you search Scientific American you'll find theories with supporting evidence about the big bang and so on. :)

luxxi
07-08-2004, 12:40
Not to mention, that obviously, human development has long broken that barrier of "natural selection".

Yes, it's called culture and from it developed nurture. We take care of individuals that can't take of themselves and would othewise die if there would only be natural selection.

:newyear:

goku
07-08-2004, 19:25
katbeidar, that doesn't really have anything to do with reincarnation, but I like it. I've always loved physics. Yes, you are pretty much right on what you said. Just to be specific, the scientists in Sweden create anti-Hydrogen, which you probably know is the 1st element and the most simplistic of them all. We are still a long ways off from creating an anti version of all the elements, and even longer before they have practical use. And to add, everthing has a specific opposite. If some random matter comes into contact with some random anti-matter, nothing will probably happen. However if hydrogen and anti-hydrogen met, then large quantities of energy is produced (what else happens is still being determined). But if you meet your anti-self, do not shake hands! :p

For things like this I'd recommend reading any of Stephen Hawking's books (A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell are good). He makes complicated matters of quantum physics easy to understand.

Khartoun2004
09-08-2004, 15:46
Since Bush became president, Bible became a part of school education system, and evolution is "optional". What? :ithink: America is keeping knowledge from it's own people! Just what we need, more ignorance in this world! :rolleyes: Common! This is outrageous.



hold on a minute Kate. First I'd like to say I agree with everything else in your post whole heartedly.

However this statement is a little off. President Bush as much as he and the rest of the fundamentalists in this country would love, cannot mandate that evolution be optional to the bible unless it's in a private school. The First Amendment clearly states that there will be a seperation of Church and State. So even if Bush tried to make the bible the be all and end all of a science classroom, the supreme court, senate and house of reps would bit his head off. It's not possible as long as the system works.

Don't worry about us American students, I can assure you they are still teaching evolution instead of the bible in public schools.

spyretto
14-08-2004, 02:04
I think the verdict should be:

99% probability there's no God

1% that there is.

But you gotta respect that 1%.

As for evolution, I find the idea that all organisms originate from a single organism quite stupid - coz this is what the evolutionists' are trying to point out. But then again, one has to respect those theories too.

Kate
14-08-2004, 07:17
spyretto, in my opinion the probability that there's God is more like a 10 to the power of negative infinity. But I do respect people who believe in God to a certain extent. :p

russkayatatu
18-08-2004, 21:43
katbeidar, I think you're oversimplifying evolutionary theory into one answer, an ultrareductionary stance like Richard Dawkin's, which turns Darwinism into something like the key to everything - a powerful theory that explains all the fundamentals of our existence. But that's not the only way to look at it. Everyone agrees evolution occurs, but exactly how and why are where everybody disperses. Don't simplify "evolution" into an God (or god) -disproving, this-is-definitely-what-happened viewpoint. "We got lucky" and "bigger brains helped us survive" are POSSIBILITIES, but they're not necessary, and they're not something you need to 'believe' in either.

(To be honest, I really don't see how evolution has anything to do with God and why this is part of the discussion at all - like either you believe in "silly religious nonsense" or you're a True Scientist - Freeman Dyson pointed out that among first-class scientists are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, militant atheists, and those, like him, loosely bound to Christianity through habit and upbringing but not devoted to any specific creed, as well as others. "The voice of science is a Babel of diverse languages and cultures," he said.)

I don't mean to suggest that the creationists are right when they say that evolution is "only a theory" and that "their theory is just as good" - they're not - I'm just saying that evolutionary biology doesn't end with Darwin's theories and that if you read Stephen Jay Gould, for example, he suggests that natural selection and standard Darwinian evolution really don't have much explaining power at all. Complexity theory and guys like Stuart Kauffman give little or no place to natural selection.

Regarding humans specifically, I think there's much more in play than what Darwin originally theorized - we know that we you apply Darwinian theory to human societies - Social Darwinism - you get all kinds of fatalistic, eugenic movements, people like Lombroso comparing the skulls of criminals and black people to the faces of apes and theories like "we go through all the races in the womb, ending at White; if you're born Black or Mongolian then you are 'stuck' at one of the lower levels." A few days ago I read part of an interesting book called Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People, by Joan Roughgarden, Professor of Biological Sciences at Stanford University, which basically argues, among other things, that Darwin's theory of sexual selection is wrong. I think you'd like it, Kate, it's really fascinating :)

Kate
18-08-2004, 21:55
russkayatatu, I'm a biology major, I think I have a winder grasp on what evolution is then any one of us here. :) I write essays on evolution that get "A+", I have a very wide base of knowledge on this subject, and can argue it from any point of view. But all my conclusions have a simple logic to them. Sorry if we disagree.