Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
some people were arguing about this today, I want you guys's opinions
and all I came up with were shirts that made fun of it...
...until I read it. FAIL
Jensen Ackles. My wife fancies him something rotten. I'm not jealous of course!
I don't believe in a literal 6-day creation nor do I believe we just happened to evolve from very simple organisms - how does something as complex as an eye evolve? It's an irreducible complexity in my opinion as opposed to something that eventually appeared after successive mutations.
So that leaves me stumped. I guess I believe in Intelligent Design - I am convinced that we and the universe we find ourselves in were created by God. Whether that was over millions of years through evolutionary processes or in an instant...no idea.
I have a feeling I'm going to need it.
This is an argument based on personal incredulity - you can't conceive of how it occurred, so you simply don't believe it.
There are a number of animals whose 'eyes' are simply groups of light-sensitive cells (eg flatworms and annelid worms), others who have eyes similar to a pinhole camera, and so on up to the more complex forms.
Have a look at this figure:
I'm sure you're trolling, but really, you can't say something is irreducibly complex when it's clear you haven't read up on the subject.
'just happened to evolve'?
There's no 'just happened' about it, it's a complex process that has occurred over millions of years. This is the kind of argument that leads to creationists saying "well, if evolution is true, how come I've never seen a monkey turn into a person?"
Yeah, me too
read 'Life Ascending' by Nick Lane. There's an entire chapter devoted to explaining what is known about the evolution of the complex eye. And it's a great book.
Where does he fit into evolution and creationism?
If God exists out of time then the billion of years waiting time is mere detail
says that the earth is 6,000 years old, every creature was put on it fully-formed, and that the fossil record was put there by god 'to test our faith'.
You say you couldn't survive extreme heat or extreme cold. This is because environment plays a huge part in evolution - 'survival of the fittest' does not mean the strongest or most athletic, it means the survival of those who are the best 'fit' to their circumstances. This includes habitat, predation, resource gathering, reproduction, etc.
I'm concerned that you can't even make the 'leap' from early hominids to modern-day man. In evolutionary terms, it's a very short space of time. Again, it's this argument from personal incredulity that gets me - there's so much research and writing on the topic out there to present the huge body of evidence, and people don't bother to even read a book about it before making up their minds.
immediately gives up on any credible stance their arguement may have had.
Homo habilis had an expansion in brain size since Lucy. Lucy's kind was on average ~440cc, while Homo habilis was on average ~680cc (though some got up to even 800cc). And homo habilis are as old as 2.5 million years ago. As I say earlier, Homo erectus on average is ~900cc and Homo sapiens are ~1350cc.
Primates in general have a large brain relative to their body size, along with a longer juvenile period than other animals which gives us time to learn and expand our intelligence. Slowly our ancestors had a smaller percentage of the adult brain present at birth which created an even longer juvenile period allowing for even more learning capabilities. But no it wasn't a huge leap in the great scheme of things.
Forgot to include the range of cranial capacity list:
Australopithecines (Lucy): 350-550cc
Homo habilis: 500-800cc
Homo erectus: 800-1200cc
Modern humans: 1300-1400cc
so yeah again, not that big of a leap
First off, hominid is the old term. Nowadays it is hominin. Not all that important but hey the more you know :)
Secondly, Homo erectus is hardly crude. That homonin was pretty much Homo sapien from the neck down -- though it did have pretty thick enamel and 2x the brain size as homo habilis (their cranial capacity was ~900 cc, homo sapien's ~1350 cc). And they had a reorganization of the brain toward a modern two hemisphere layout, as shown by their right handedness while making tools. They were pretty much the same size bone wise as us (I even have held a cast of their bones next to mine and it is about the same), their movement and locomotion was modern, they made symmetrical stone tools that required planning with a mental image, butchered, cooked at least nuts (evidence for meat is not known but presumed), and their reduced sexual dimorphism even hints at a trend toward more pair bonding.
seem to be more in touch with earthly early hominids than most, albeit through some rather high faluting poetic pedestal worshiping.
I feel the opposite, I feel very much an earthling, my brain can help me use tools and create shelter and clothing and heat, because my brain can understand that which is on earth, much of this IS through artificial means but twere not so then it could still be passed down through other humans.....e.g. I imagine someone showed you how to hunt, I could show you lots of plants and stuff to do with it, lots of other animals pass on down knowledge too, orangutans for instance, must use the poetic part of their brain to remember the order and correspondances between particular plants fruiting (cos of the nature of the fauna in their area and the timings of the flowerings, where the order of the readyness is nore applicable than using seasons to know what is 'out' rain forest flowers depend more on pollinator agents and these are limited in numnber and so each plant species 'tends to have its day' ....more so than in our climate anyway, poetic thought helps beat to learning plantlore if you learn it in the more natural 'passing on' methods rather than the modern artificial 'repository of acedemic information' method (which will only alienate you further from feeling that we are earthlings than would the other methods. Of course its best to use both, but the 'passing on' method, like I say, is a method that earthling animals do........humans have mostly tried to abandon that (although it is nice that humans still seem to also prefer to have recipes that someone has handed to them rather than just use apersonal cookbooks (although they use those as well)
this approach breeds ignorance and a lack of curiosity about the world we inhabit. What kind of message are we passing on to future generations if we say that it is alright to ignore the vast mountain of evidence for evolution, and believe something written in a plagiarised and contradictory text? It also creates a divisive world, where people argue over whose plagiarised and contradictory text is the right one, when no evidence exists to back up any of them.
The whole wording of that sentence (and a lot of the rest of the post, to be honest) is incredibly frustrating. The idea that something is a 'mystery' and we should just leave it at that is just ludicrous - with this kind of thinking, we would never have made any of the scientific or technological advances that exist today. I think Saint_Cronin's belief that it is a "mystery that will never be 'solved' or 'proven'" shows that he fails to understand the scientific method. Science isn't maths - it doesn't deliver a definitive 'proof', but creates a body of evidence that supports a theory. If 'incredible new evidence' emerges, such as a massive God coming down from the sky and going HI I'M GOD AND THIS IS HOW I MADE EVERYTHING, then the accepted theory would be revised. For now, the body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is overwhelming, but creationists like to use their definition of 'theory' to say, well, it's just a theory, just like creationism.
There is no evidence for creationism. There is a vast amount of evidence for evolution.
analizes the nature of life by abstract use of verbal/textual codes,
being an animal that is (to a degree) 'Lost within some of the verbal reasoning', the 'mysteriousness' is to a degree, as much of a product of humans 'being slightly disorientated by verbal reasoning
(verbal reasoning is slightly illogical, as it is not as objective as peopl might start to think that it is, unless strict rigour is always maintained, and yet this will also fail as in debate the same level of scrupulessness will not always be maintained))
Humans will be finding their own species 'mysterious' as we will be more unaware of the subjectiveness of out analysis (because we measure human experiances in different ways that we analyse our observations of other animals......simply because of the obvious .....that we are humans and we can experiance the human animal experiance WITHOUT verbal reasoning.
It is this gulf between the two aspects of our analysis that is confusing....i.e. 1) we can analyse (as we would any animal)
2) we can actually feel (although people mostly internally verbalise what they are feeling that narrative is not essential to have human animal experiances) what its like to be human.
This is why you are identifying that humans are 'mysterious' perhaps
just wanted to make it clearer
Any refutation of religious belief by appeal to science is therefore just as doomed as ignoring a body of scientific evidence in favour of a more "religious" explanation of something.
And hopefully then they'll stop spouting pseudoscientific bullshit.
We are on exactly the same page.
An abbreviated list of human fossils from 7 million years ago up until less than 1000 years ago.
There are some disagreements and competing theories for certain points, and why some things may have evolved as they did, but I fail to see any great 'mystery' here:
Lots of research is being done on the genetics side of things to see whether there is more evidence for the Out-of-Africa (replacement) or Multiregional hypothesis. Most evidence points to the former.
There is no mystery here that you are alluding to; the genetic evidence IS overwhelming. I wasn't talking about human evolution when saying "vast mountain of evidence", but I'll stick with that description. The fossil record, mitochondrial evidence, etc - again, I don't understand exactly what it is that you're claiming to be so mysterious.
yes, it is true that people might highlight a gap between one find (a) and another (b) .....but then they might find something that bridges halfway between (a) and (b) this we will call (c)
but then of course you can say that there are missing links between (a) and (c) and one between (c) and (b).
People who want to doubt evolution are really quick to round on these new missing links, even if we then find links between a and c (lets call it d) then they will emphasise the difference between (a) and (d).
The thing is, the gaps between the human ancestor finds are not significant (significance here being determined by an understanding gained by how much you have looked at other species and the 'gaps' in bridging species/subspecies, and at life and its developement in general.
It is also (sometimes) impossible to tell from some fossilised remains what ancestors were seperate species or not, sometimes large physiological differences can occur within a species, yet they could still breed successfully, sometimes physiologically similar looking individuals might not be able to breed because they are different species.
Anyway the gaps in hominoid records is not significant or unusual enough to suggest that evolutionary factors were not helping develop modern humans, If anyone has told you that then they are fibbing, although they might possibly just been quoting (ignorantly) from the loud and numerous claims of 'MISSING LINKS' which they shout as if it is significant.
We Know from the study of other life, other species that there is never a complete record of all the chains of evolutionary developement, there never would be. It is not significant.
Your belief in missing links being a significant factor in prooving that evolution cant be proved for humans is probably a consequence of you hearing it sooooo many times.
Of course there is another way that 'missing links' get talked about, and that is, its great to be able to discover the links between the biggest gaps in species, that is natural and normal that some people would fixate on wanting to find these.
..with this. It's a wilful misunderstanding of evolution for a political agenda.
As for the bones lying between us and 'Lucy', well, homo habilis and homo erectus are a good start..
The fossils and the genetic evidence are the only evidence that exists.. there is no evidence for anything else! It's no leap of faith, and there's certainly no theory based on 'conjecture and assumptions'. Scientists create hypotheses and, if backed up by enough evidence, these can become theories. Of course, it would be better to have more evidence - that is the basis of science! Your example of Einstein proving something doesn't really bear any relevance here. You can't recreate the environmental pressures and time periods for evolution in a controlled laboratory environment. Further to this, I'm not sure why you state 'ONLY after millions of years of evolutionary development' - evolution is a gradual process! I think you need to clarify your meaning here, as I don't get your point - is it just that you think paleontologists should have found more fossils altogether?
Because they all lapsed into ranting. I'll try to restrain myself this time. The onus isn't on the mainstream media to inform *you* about scientific advances (and in fact mainstream media reporting of science is woefully inadequate and inaccurate for the most part). It is nonsense to suggest that CNN is going to keep you up to date on scientific advances as they happen, not least because it represents a profound misunderstanding of how science works; it doesn't generally advance in massive leaps and bounds, but inch by inch as more and more research is conducted, punctuated by the occasional big leap (discovery of the structure of DNA and its implications in heredity; sequencing of the human genome and hopefully at some point in the next few decades the human proteome, etc).
Your Einstein analogy isn't relevant because it's absolutely false to suggest that Einstein's work has been proven in a way that evolution has not. In fact it's a remarkably close position to the "evolution is just a theory!" line which is frequently stated as a creationist argument, and which confuses the colloquial meaning of "theory" with the scientific one. They are not the same, and this is an unfortunate source of confusion. Evolution is just a strong, and just as well supported, theory as anything Einstein ever did.
If your knowledge of evolution is coming from the direct works of Darwin, Wallace and Hooker then you're about a century behind the curve. Their work was all the more remarkable for how complete it was despite the intricacies of genetics being almost completely unknown in their time. It's astonishing how accurate they managed to be without knowing the means by which natural selection could affect inheritance.
There's a ton of great information over at http://talkorigins.org, starting with the FAQ and delving into whatever sections catch your eye. It's a better source of information than whatever can be gleaned from mainstream media.
The talkorigins website is fantastic, and there's a number of other links in this thread that give some great overviews of the evolutionary process / human evolution.
Scientists don't just run to the news with botch jobs, they check the same sequence many times.
A Neandathal has effectively been sequenced. The researchers found that there was approximately 99.7% of the DNA sequence was identical to ours. They also suggested that Neandathals and us may have interbred.
This was all over the news in May this year, I guess you were busy and missed it.
No news agency is going to run a story that says 'news just in: mankind is from earth and not transported in from another planet'. All the evidence points to evolution; as I said further up in this thread, if there is suddenly incredible new evidence that mankind came from somewhere else, THEN the accepted theory would have to be revised.
I would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this topic, and to see some evidence supporting this hypothesis...
We've already established my position on the thread topic, and as you say then you have nothing other than your feelings to go on, so it just depends whether you want to expand on what you've said or just leave the thread here.
I get it now, I think.......Patrick, is it that you feel you are not of this earth?
Well I KNOW, that I am of this earth and am a monkey-man, I have evidence but evidence that is difficult to verbalise without going for a long walk in the wilderness.
Perhaps humans are not all 'totally' from the same place.
Now go and watch 'Quatermass and the Pit',
never has anything on DIS seigued so neatly into one of my favourate films
For me, this is the single most convincing piece of genetic evidence that humans and other apes share a common ancestor:
If you read past the headlines many news reports, especially in papers, contain all the relevant information and caveats associated with the research.
I created the universe. I didn't want to say anything as I fucked up a few parts and am a bit embarrassed by some of work, plus I hate making a big deal out of things and drawing attention to myself, but the speculation's just got out of hand. It was me and I'm sorry for not speaking up before.
much like cubism ...only not as fun or thought provoking
You're saying every creationist is insane?
Think about it. Fucking magnets, how do they work?!
*whispers* she knows too much.
but I don't revolve.
but who created the lizards?
also: Electricity - the flow of charged particles or invisible reverse-vampire ghost dust?
it's lizards all the way down
but also scared because some people actually believe that. It always makes me wonder whether the people making such videos actually believe what they're saying. It's amazing how much of the creationism debate is built upon the 'straw man' debating method.
the pocketwatch theory. Then again, it's about suspension of belief I guess, much like the concept of religion in general, so it makes sense that people can go with creationism.
"Accept that these unproven things are true, and THEN start forming theories around them."
that makes me skeptical
When the three time presidential nominee, William Jenning Bryan, worked himself into such a religious fervour that at the Scopes 'Monkey' trial in Tennessee he claimed man wasn't a mammal...much to the ammusment of everyone - who then agreed it was ok to teach evolution.
Seems wierd to be backtracking. Shall we discuss whether we can find a necromancer responsible for this weather?
(apparently - it has 5.9 on imdb)
^Read this and try not to not believe in evolution. I bet you can't!
I don't believe in either.
I just don't get how people are supposed to have evolved from Chimps (gonna look pretty dumb if I just dreamt that)
If so...why didn't the other chimps evolve?
As creaky says below, we didn't evolve from chimps - we share a common ancestor with them. I don't think there's any point in my repeating various stuff from other posts, but this link gives a nice overview of human evolution:
chimps and humans evolved from a common predecessor though
means 'S*** or get off the pot'
Because it's a great, neat, clever and simple theory at heart that opens up and helps us answer not how we got here, but a lot of other reasons for animals, things, and helps to understand the world that we live in and the processes that take place in it.
Creationism is simply batshit insane disregard for the scientific evidence that displays the contrary and is based on blind faith in scripture and teachings. True creationism is, at least.
where he talks about a discussion with an artist friend of his; I think that this could be easily transposed to deal with how creationists argue that their appreciation is a 'purer' form because they are seeing the 'glory of god':
I have a friend who's an artist and he's sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree, I think. And he says - "you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." And I think that he's kind of nutty.
First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is; but I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time I see much more about the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension of one centimetre, there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure.
Also the processes, the fact that the colours in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting - it means that insects can see the colour. It adds a question: Does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which shows that science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds; I don't understand how it subtracts.
Maybe that's true *now*, but you can't brushstroke history's artists with that one of course.
what we percieve is so beautiful or interesting that it invites you to find out more. He particularly with say birds of paradise (birds so beautiful and visually fascinating, yet it isnt for the benefit of humans, its for other birds )
I feel the same way about flowers, but more than that, it is also interesting 'why' we percieve them as beautiful when they are for insects, I have answers, but I can only explain if we went on a walk out in the wilderness
and the fact that we perceive these birds and flowers to be beautiful as well is very interesting.
I'd really recommend you read Ridley's book 'The Red Queen', which deals with the evolution of sex and sexual selection. There's a lot of studies on sexual selection you might find interesting too - I'll find some later and link to them.
(helps to spread seeds) and whatever is eating it (food source), it makes sense for fruits to be attractive to humans and other animals. Therefore, it also makes sense for their to be an attraction to thing that leads to the development of the fruit (i.e the flower) and that it would be beneficial for the animal to live near places with many flowers. Possibly. I suppose you could also argue that flowers are not just for insects: them being attractive to other animals could help in pollination.
There's probably also many other indirect reasons why we would find flowers attractive based on similarity to other things we find attractive for evolutionary purposes.
I do like fidling with flowers, I often do some pollination with plants myself, I also spread their seeds, further
I find the discussion fascinating - and no I wasn't trolling! (unless trolling is by nature having an opposing view to the majority) Hands up that I don't know much about science, although I'm reading up on as much as I can. (I have a degree in Maths which is a subset of science but my science teachers put me off the subject itself massively in school...)
I don't see my belief in God as a Christian as the result of being unable to explain how the universe functions and therefore concluding 'it must be God!' (and then picking some convenient local religion) Nor do I see how evolution would rule out God having a role in our existence as if somehow deducing the methods of creation renders the creator redundant. The magnitutude of the universe, the astronomical chances of our bodies functioning correctly, the earth being just the right distance from the sun for water to exist in three different states...I see order, design and beauty, and agree that scientific knowledge adds to the excitement and the appreciation of it all. I was happy believing that we were the product of blind chance before becoming a Christian but now believe in a God that is actively involved in human history and pre-history. Off to read about eye structures on a Nautilus...
"The magnitutude of the universe, the astronomical chances of our bodies functioning correctly, the earth being just the right distance from the sun for water to exist in three different states...I see order, design and beauty,"
You do realise how many stars there are in the universe, right? It's highly unlikely one particular person will win the lottery, yet someone wins nearly every week...
I'm far from an expert, but ive got a lot of books and web links on evolution so feel free to PM me if you have any questions about something you find..
As the simplest and most enjoyable way of understanding the idea of evolution
(cos words seem to be easy for many people to take the wrong way when it comes to understanding evolution)
I would recommend that you watch all 9 series of 'Life' documentaries, presented by David Attenborough.
This is by far and away the easiest way to actually become familiar with many evolutionary factors without consiously studying.
Putting farmyard animals on trial for witchcraft: yes or no?
Animals can't defend themselves in a court.
What you do is skip the trial and go straight for the test. Dunk 'em in boiling oil. If they survive, they've been using withcraft, so you need to kill 'em. If they don't survive, you're safe in the knowledge that they definitely weren't indulging in withcraft.
my veggie mind didn't didn't have that angle covered. i was thinking of some 'orrible old engine oil.
in fact Ive sort of suprised myself with thinking about that angle....perhaps my middles ages self ate meat? Perhaps I just dont like to see waste
Great fun trying to work it out, though, innit.
YOU HEARD HIM TOMATRON. ITS A JIGSAW PUZZLE WITH PEICES THAT WERE NEVER IN THE BOX.
I abandoned it. No-one should post a philosophical exegesis on a Friday night.
...as Jesus giggles in the corner
They say made by Jesus on the underside.
Words wouldn't lie... would they?
That's one massive magpie.
we don't have this dumb 'debate' at all over here :(
How people find it incredulous that complex lifeforms gradually evolved from less complex lifeforms, so therefore assume it must have been created by some omnipotent uberlord in the sky for His own amusement.
that you don't actually like that at all.
The theory that humans' penchant for religion has actually, in itself, come around through evolution. It brings us closer together and encourages morals, which in turn makes us more successful animals.
The mistake many make with evolution is that it is a constant and deliberate strive for improvement. It is about niches and random mutations which allow more success in that niche. Some are dead ends - Pandas can sit about and eat bamboo and little else. No bamboo, no more pandas. Our niche is intelligence and the ability to cooperate and communicate to survive. This is a nice niche to have, but there are only 6 billion of us. There are probably more bacteria in your gut right now.
they have a penchant to be animals and they have a penchant to control.
When humans are to be controled from a distance and to be broken and to fit into a rigid role then we lose a lot, to control that yearning and missing something religeon is good at helping to control. religeon picks up many instinctive things that we would do as pagan animals, and which organised/controlled society tends to do away with as being that which is most important to us as human animals, religeon holds some rituals and allows humans the comfort of something bigger than ourselves, so that our own small isolated mortality doesnt ovewhelm us.
Naturally the awe of life and nature and of cyclical things make us feel there is something bigger.....but organised society needs humans to think that HUMAN shaped daddys in the sky (like humans who own the land that you work on (even thought they have never visited) .....they afre like human shaped daddys....kings whatever......like what you got in summaria, where writing evolved and showed that someone who you never met (in the city) , owned the land that you wre made to work on.
Rome adopted christianity as it realised that its model was actually a good fit for centuralised authoritatrian control......Of course religeon did not necessarily se out o be so horrible , it just gets to have to support the controling powers attitude on the whole.
Humans beings, animals and heathens worship upon the heath, cos it makes us feel more spiritual and more alive and more connected (go out in a storm on a mountain or stand in front of the sea or a river or a waterfall, and it takes over your senses, because it is real, it allows your mind to wonder....but.......in a building or a church, you just have to imagine......
in mountains or deserts your mind can empty and can meditate and imagine and find peace, in a church made of stone....or in a monastry of stone.....with chanting to block out polite coughs and shuffling then it tries to get near.
Its weird how much of catholocisms rituals are just pagsn rituals.
there is fire, there is air, there is water and there is earth,...older ways of seeing elements Also aether (in greece).
The churches also heavily concentrate on calandrical festivals, many/most appropriated and taken over from the original pagan calandrical and therefore REAL festivals.
Religeon is the artificial and the controlled way to interpret what you feel and the world, through the expert guidance of someone who is in an artificial heirarchy (hence the good fit with centralised control) rather than yourself relating to the world......so i would say that "humans penchant for religeon has actually in itself come around through the cessation of evolution and the imposition of centralised artificial control"
(we stopped physically evolving before 'religeon' appeared.
Pagenism and animism were not religeons
human society, where human society evolution has shot to the for, and a new evolutionary factor for the whole of the planet has come into play - mammon, which in itself has evolved from human trading into an abstract force
incentives and reversals means that the longer timescale of gradual genetic evolution based on what is healthy for the species (in so far as it reflects the species ability to thrive in what will be its long term environment, is bypassed.
Now there are rapid changes that have resulted in genetic make up alterations, such as the enclosure of lands with stricter borders, and of segregation due to more rigid guidelines........and in recent years there has been a sudden uleashing og the floodgates of global interbreeding (what with more global travel available to many)....but although these do affect the genetic make up and balance of the species, it is not one of what is recognised as the core elements of evolution (there are many evolutionary methods and factors though and this is an example of one of them)......normally when people refer to evolution they tend to refer to the mechanism that involves the survival of the fittest breeding more.....obviously 'fittest' can mean many things......and with my example of global travel this certainly means that there is a refresh of new genes into populations that might otherwise been stagnant.
Another espect of globalisation is the destruction of many human genetic 'islands' either through absorbtion back into the mainstream, or often through decimation of isolated communities due to virilant diseases that have progressed father in their evolution due to large concentrated populations in the globalising societies.
There is also other spectres that mammon and arbitary (evolutionary environment speaking) society raises, things that might not yet have been applied (thank goodness) like gm on humans, or pathogens gm to target particular genetic types.
Of course there is also the non laboritorial gm that has been accelerated by humans selectively breeding livestock and plants, until recently this is more passive, although the increase in the various grasses (rice, grasses....for pasture/grazing, other cereals) has of course largely altered the flora of the world (grasses must view humans as their freinds (if they were sentient)
But these things aside, human evolution progressing according to the sustainable environment has ceased.
tomatron is the best