View Full Version : Evolution: what the hell is it all about!
Life is all about winning... about making sure that no one is better than you... about giving it to people who think they're better than you... about making sure that puppies and other helpless creatures know that YOU'RE the boss... face it, it's all about YOU and NO ONE ELSE... you can live in a complete social vacuum after all, without ANYONE ELSE to bother you... why not be a brain in a vat... that way you wouldn't have to deal with anyone else... I hope this has been helpful...The survival instinct makes no sense unless preceded by purpose.
The chemicals are present and the conditions are right so here we are?
I don't think so.
I doesn't make sense to me for a few supposedly common chemicals under the right conditions to produce life that evolves, no matter how much time is involved.
The idea is ludicrous.
There is something more.
Ferre
18-09-2009, 07:05 AM
I doesn't make sense to me for a few supposedly common chemicals under the right conditions to produce life that evolves, no matter how much time is involved.
..but that's how it is Atom. It's reality, whether you understand how it works or not.
:sqwink:
Ferre
18-09-2009, 07:18 AM
..and at the other hand, there are scientists who tend to go with the theory that the earth, and all on it combined, is one living organism which is still in an evolutionary process.
I recommend you to see these videos;
The Primacy of Conciousness, by Peter Russel;
The Primacy of Consciousness - Peter Russell (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7799171063626430789&hl=nl#)
The Global Brain;
The Global Brain (http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=7799171063626430789#docid=69830747 09191796496)
This is fascinating material Atom, much of it makes sense too.
Strong
18-09-2009, 07:31 AM
Is that the Gaia hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis) by James Lovelock Ferre?
Ferre
18-09-2009, 07:41 AM
Yes, sort off. It's worth looking into, in a way it relates to Max Wertheimer's Gestalt theory and it is fascinating material. It also gives a better understanding of how religion came to be, and why humans came up with what I call the 'god concept'.
..but that's how it is Atom. It's reality, whether you understand how it works or not.
:sqwink:No, in actual fact that is not how it is, Ferre, and it is not reality, it is theory and you know it. I should have posted my comments in the debate forum and not in this thread. Sorry, Zap, maybe you or someone can move mine and Ferre's posts to the debate forum.
Strong
18-09-2009, 01:23 PM
Did we really evolve from small fury creatures? It seems so unlikely. Or did that funny bearded fellow just make it up? :sqconfused:
(I moved the above posts from The Last Poster To Post Wins thread because Atom requested it, but also because it is an interesting discussion I think. Please continue!).
Ferre
18-09-2009, 02:00 PM
No, in actual fact that is not how it is, Ferre, and it is not reality, it is theory and you know it. I should have posted my comments in the debate forum and not in this thread. Sorry, Zap, maybe you or someone can move mine and Ferre's posts to the debate forum.
Nah, it is fact Atom. It has been re-produced in lab conditions already a few years ago. I even remember that I supplied a link to that research at that other forum, but stuff like that is often ignored.
Here's some stuff that might interest you;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2122619.stm
Lifes First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange
Ferre it's taking me forever to get through those vids in post #6, I'm assuming it's my ISP, I'll keep trying though, the connection may speed up later. I'm going to watch them all.
It's flash and it's buffering too often so I suspect it's my connection speed, but, if I could remember what that site was that checks your speed I may be able to ascertain more certainly. lol
Muddy
18-09-2009, 04:49 PM
Speedtest.net - The Global Broadband Speed Test (http://www.speedtest.net/)
Ok thanks, Muddy, maybe I'll be able to figure something out now. I was thinking that there might be a chance that my flash wasn't updated or something but I still think it's the ISP and will report back when I find out any significant wait a minute, isn't this the Evolution thread? n/m
Oh yeah fresh air is great, unless you're dead.
I just turned on me ventilation fan, sorry.
I caught the mind altering part there in the beginning, but that's all for now, this connection is just not cooperating, oh that's right I've a link to check, shall be done shortly and thanks again, Muddy.
A five meg mp3 takes 42 seconds,
A 35 meg video clip takes 5 minutes,
An 800 meg movie takes 111 minutes,
ISP download = .96 megabee's/sec
ISP server = .11 megabits/sec
I want my money back.
Ferre
18-09-2009, 05:34 PM
When you pause viewing a Google video and open a new window to surf the download will go on and you can view it when it's downloaded entirely.
When you pause viewing a Google video and open a new window to surf the download will go on and you can view it when it's downloaded entirely.I know but they're flash videos. It seems I don't have the capacity to download them. The links are in Dutch though, I may be misinterpreting something but I don't think so.
iowadawg
18-09-2009, 05:54 PM
If man evolved from apes,
why are there still apes?
Man evolved really just to end up pleasing woman.
I've tried just letting them buffer for a while but they didn't seem to be downloading. I'll try it again, maybe I just didn't wait long enough.
If man evolved from apes,
why are there still apes?Because we supposedly branched off and their line simply continued , as well as ours of course.
Man evolved really just to end up pleasing woman.You're probably right.
Ferre
18-09-2009, 07:00 PM
If man evolved from apes,
why are there still apes?
That man evolved from apes is a common misunderstanding widely maintained by certain religious folks who are mostly clueless about the real science.
Fact is that man did not evolve from apes. Apes and man have a 'common ancestor', which means that both apes and man evolved separately from a common ancestor which lived 5 to 8 million years ago.
Human Ancestors Hall: Tree (http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/a_tree.html)
Man evolved really just to end up pleasing woman.
In a way, yes. :sqlaugh:
Ferre
18-09-2009, 07:02 PM
BTW,..When looking for planets that are suitable for hosting life, scientists usually seek planets exactly like our own. But is this view short-sighted? Here's an interesting look at why life does NOT necessarily have to be just like ours. There are several atoms and solvents that could potentially spawn life.
Alternative Life Systems in the Universe -Interstellar Clouds to Neutron Stars (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/possible-alternative-life-systems-in-the-universe-interstellar-clouds-to-neutron-stars.html)
BTW,..When looking for planets that are suitable for hosting life, scientists usually seek planets exactly like our own. But is this view short-sighted? Here's an interesting look at why life does NOT necessarily have to be just like ours. There are several atoms and solvents that could potentially spawn life.
Alternative Life Systems in the Universe -Interstellar Clouds to Neutron Stars (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/possible-alternative-life-systems-in-the-universe-interstellar-clouds-to-neutron-stars.html)
I've always held the same view, that looking for "Earth Like" planets in order to find life is short sighted.
It's a great method for finding Earth Like life, but, as we've seen here on Earth, life can survive in even the harshest conditions.
I suspect the reasons that we haven't found life elsewhere have more to do with our own limitations, rather than real possibilities.
iowadawg
18-09-2009, 08:50 PM
Actually they look for planets that could have life that has evolved beyond little things.
And thus, from all the possibilities, it boils down to having to be earth like.
Now our Milky Way galaxy alone has 200 to 400 billion stars.
Good possibility there for a few earth like planets.
Then there are billions of galaxies in the universe.
Now, even the worse mathematical model of the odds of human like life out there say they are thousands of planets in the universe.
I believe that in the past (2,000 or more years ago) aliens came to earth.
Muddy
18-09-2009, 09:04 PM
Very interesting. Why 2000 or more years ago as opposed to 3 or 4 thousand years ago?
Muddy
18-09-2009, 09:04 PM
Or 1000 years ago?
iowadawg
18-09-2009, 09:08 PM
Could be that Jesus was an alien?
Think about it..,,
Muddy
18-09-2009, 09:17 PM
Well, from a Christian standpoint, he certainly was an alien.
ewomack
19-09-2009, 12:25 AM
Well, the Romans thought so at least...
Muddy
19-09-2009, 11:29 AM
He came from outer space, lived inside and fed off of a human host, spoke in an enigmatic way often about his and others life in space, sweated blood, disappeared and then reappeared looking differently then disappeared again.
Well, I've watch all the vids and read all the links, the vids were working fine last night.
Ferre, what example can you give me where scientists have produced atoms from light, atoms that actually evolve? And Strongy, yes, that is the Gaia hypothesis, and it is exactly what it said, a hypothesis, not "fact".
Ferre
19-09-2009, 12:12 PM
From a Christian point of view, Jeebus lived with dinosaurs, can we please go on with an intellectual conversation about evolution and leave the mythology and fairy tales behind us?
Muddy
19-09-2009, 12:14 PM
I wasn't supporting the Christian view. I was responding to Iowadawg's point.
In The Global Brain, the explanation for the origin of matter that evolves is from light energy. We have not been able to create matter that evolves in a laboratory, or anywhere else to my knowledge, in this way.
Ferre
19-09-2009, 12:22 PM
Well, I've watch all the vids and read all the links, the vids were working fine last night.
Ferre, what example can you give me where scientists have produced atoms from light, atoms that actually evolve? And Strongy, yes, that is the Gaia hypothesis, and it is exactly what it said, a hypothesis, not "fact".
Why should scientists produce atoms from light Atom? light is electromagnetic radiation and consists of protons, which are packets of energy, at the other hand, life as we know it is a combination of biochemicals.
And Atom, atoms do not 'evolve', they are just that, atoms. Microbiotic life consists of cells, composed by biochemicals like aminoacids and hydrocarbonates etc. Also, circumstances on earth today can not be compared to the circumstances in where life first evolved.
I did find the material somewhat fascinating, as well as the oratories.
Why should scientists produce atoms from light Atom? (...)To prove to me that your statement that "that's the way it is" is true. As I said, in The Global Mind vid you will see that it is hypothesized that light produced atoms (their words, not mine) that multiply and began the evolutionary process.
Ferre
19-09-2009, 12:32 PM
In The Global Brain, the explanation for the origin of matter that evolves is from light energy. We have not been able to create matter that evolves in a laboratory, or anywhere else to my knowledge, in this way.
Atom, we simply don't know (yet). The explanation on the global brain is only a hypothesis, although based on available science it still lacks a lot of information that has yet to be found to come to valid conclusions, there still is a lot of work to be done by researchers for decades to come before we can even get close to answer many of the questions that come up with every new answer we do find.
What's important is to keep informed on the research, the things we are finding out the past 50 years alone are more miraculous and spectacular than ever before, we build satellites now and talk to each other through computers which present us with all the knowledge humanity has at the same time while speeding up the process of gaining even more.
Developments in science go fast nowadays Atom, very fast.
Yes, I found the curve chart interesting, especially that last curve, the one it's said that we're just starting up now.
The hypothesis actually states that electrons and protons were born of the light (pure energy) of the big bang, and that they started to combine to form atoms, molecules and so on, but I've always been under the impression that light consisted of photons, unique particles that are not even mentioned, and are not electrons or protons, I find this rather odd. I also find it peculiar that it's implied that a nucleus (a particle of mass constituting the center of an atom) would be formed from electrons and protons. It basically says that light (somehow *rolls eyes) spawned electrons/protons, and the combination of these formed atoms (complete with nucleus), whose combination formed molecules and so on. That's a hard one for me to swallow without some kind of proof.
But a point I'd like to make here is that even if this hypothesis were fact, the course of these events of combination do not display randomness, in fact in my mind the opposite is evident to a substantial degree, that of purpose.
Muddy
19-09-2009, 10:54 PM
...in fact in my mind the...
Ah, what a beautiful statement. The quintessential purpose of this forum.
iowadawg
19-09-2009, 10:56 PM
I only mind my mind when I am out of my mind.
Ferre
20-09-2009, 08:26 AM
But a point I'd like to make here is that even if this hypothesis were fact, the course of these events of combination do not display randomness, in fact in my mind the opposite is evident to a substantial degree, that of purpose.
Have you ever heard of Alan Watts Atom? Alan Watts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts)
Maybe there is some sort of purpose, question is whether this purpose has always been there or has is it the result of the same evolution process, and could it be that this purpose at itself is still subject to this evolution process and therefore also subject to changes?
As far as I see it, the purpose of life is not to vanish completely, to find some sort of natural balance in which it can sustain. Funny enough this purpose doesn't lay its priorities by the individual species but by 'life-on-this-planet'.
If humans were to die out, like the dodo, this would not cause life on this planet to end or cause any sort of unbalance, on contrary, rain forest would grow back again and all sorts of animals and plants would thrive like never before, I think humans over-estimate their importance to life and this planet, I also think that once people grasp that concept they will also realize how silly the myths are that they created in the past.
Ferre
20-09-2009, 08:34 AM
...at the end of the day, we are just another ape species with an ability to fantasize. If we are gone, from the earth's perspective, nothing has lost.
iowadawg
20-09-2009, 10:14 AM
Ferre is correct.
We are but pimples upon the face of the earth.
There is on the Discovery Channel a series about what would happen to the earth if all humans died out at once.
Very interesting in that plant life, animal life, life in the sea, etc would explode and at some point, there would be nothing to mark the passage of man.
Have you ever heard of Alan Watts Atom? Alan Watts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts)No, but upon exploring the wiki article it appears he was quite and interesting fellow.
Maybe there is some sort of purpose, question is whether this purpose has always been there or has is it the result of the same evolution process, and could it be that this purpose at itself is still subject to this evolution process and therefore also subject to changes?Interesting questions. My feeling of course is that there was purpose before evolution, as evidenced in, for example, the combination of molecules that form a helix, in the context of the Gaia hypothesis. I see this as a very peculiar action for particle/atom/molecule combination's to achieve randomly.
As far as I see it, the purpose of life is not to vanish completely, to find some sort of natural balance in which it can sustain. Funny enough this purpose doesn't lay its priorities by the individual species but by 'life-on-this-planet'.
If humans were to die out, like the dodo, this would not cause life on this planet to end or cause any sort of unbalance, on contrary, rain forest would grow back again and all sorts of animals and plants would thrive like never before, I think humans over-estimate their importance to life and this planet, I also think that once people grasp that concept they will also realize how silly the myths are that they created in the past. I find your suggestion that purpose may be a manufacture and possibly subject to natural change interesting, my personal feeling is that it was present before evolution, of course, as evidenced by a direction of order in the Gaia evolutionary context.
julien_simon
20-09-2009, 12:52 PM
^since when do you multi quote rather than multi posts?
Has somebody hacked your account??
Muddy
20-09-2009, 12:53 PM
^LOL!
julien_simon
20-09-2009, 12:55 PM
^LOL!
stop laughing. This is a very serious matter.
Muddy
20-09-2009, 12:57 PM
Yes sir.
...at the end of the day, we are just another ape species with an ability to fantasize. If we are gone, from the earth's perspective, nothing has lost.I was unaware of the coitus reservatus. That was an interesting link. Yes quite an interesting fellow indeed.
julien_simon
20-09-2009, 01:14 PM
Yes sir.
now remove that bug.
I suspect that if I didn't have the attention span of a stick I may have even read a book or two of his.
Muddy
20-09-2009, 01:18 PM
I was unaware of the coitus reservatus. That was an interesting link. Yes quite an interesting fellow indeed.
Now you've got my attention...I'll be looking at some of this. Thanks.
Now you've got my attention...I'll be looking at some of this. Thanks.Y/W, although it's Ferre who got my attention with it. It's under Applied aesthetics, below the sub category: The spiritual aspect of sex.
Alan Watts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts)
.
Ferre
20-09-2009, 01:26 PM
I suspect that if I didn't have the attention span of a stick I may have even read a book or two of his.
Watch this one, and remind that this was recorded in 1971;
Alan Watts - A Conversation With Myself (Full) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8688992796818009166&ei=ZWW2SsGNDNqv-AbfhKmIAg&q=alan+watts&hl=en#)
Watch this one, and remind that this was recorded in 1971;
Alan Watts - A Conversation With Myself (Full) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8688992796818009166&ei=ZWW2SsGNDNqv-AbfhKmIAg&q=alan+watts&hl=en#)That was certainly quite interesting. So then, I suspect that my fascination with synthesized sound is illusory. It may be inferred that a higher plane of enjoyment is possible through abandonment.
"Regarding his intentions, it can be argued that Watts attempted to lessen the alienation that accompanies the experience of being human that he felt plagued the modern Westerner, and (like his fellow British expatriate and friend, Aldous Huxley) to lessen the ill will that was an unintentional by-product of alienation from the natural world."
What if the purpose of all life was the self-synthesized human mind? Expressed by thought and deed, of course.
I think that it can be said that there is absolutely nothing natural about the human mind.
What if someone posted, if spiders could loudly bark then it would be pretty noisy around here?
They may in fact be right, but, what are they really saying short of nothing?
iowadawg
20-09-2009, 03:48 PM
The end purpose of all life?
Death.
I did find the man rather amazing in that he seemed to have an incredible knack of remembering what he was talking about.
The only thing I can figure is that he simply doesn't smoke as much weed as I do.
A little joke there. I actually perceive that he is quite likely more intelligent than I, but I won't swear to it.
Here I am talking about the poor guy like he's alive. I suppose it's easier to debate a guy that's dead.
Can nothing be said for the synthetic realm?
I just finished watching Becoming Human on PBS and I must say that it was indeed interesting. I have reservations about accepting the theory that the rapid see-saw climate change in Africa was the main catalyst for the separation of ape and homo sapiens though.
iowadawg
03-11-2009, 09:26 PM
Well, there is now some serious thought that man might have had a start in China prior to Africa...
If that pans out, there go all those books and documentaries about the apes in africa...
True, It does seem that major scientists are putting their cookies in the African jar if you'll notice though, but yes that could change.
Especially with this latest discovery.
That poor guy spent eight years picking the sand away from the skull one grain at a time. lol
Apparently Becoming Human is a three part Nova special. Here's a full series preview;
Becoming Human Full Series Preview | NOVA | PBS Video (http://video.pbs.org/video/1316763318)
I've seen part one which is excellent and am waiting for part two to be aired, the preview looks good. This is pretty exciting stuff to me.
Post #73 refers to part one.
Part two premiers tomorrow at 7:00pm CST on PBS.
I've just finished watching part 2 and it is wrought with perhaps, similar to part 1. I'm surprised that part 2 did not even touch on the variability hypothesis of part 1. Apparently we were supposed to have accepted that hypothesis as we embarked on part 2, something that I personally have not been able to do as of yet, nor am I sure I will ever be able to, I'll just have to see how less speculative future finds are, providing that I am still alive, of course, lol.
ewomack
11-11-2009, 02:04 PM
Which variability hypothesis do you mean?
Which variability hypothesis do you mean?The one in part 1. It states that the acceleration of brain size and consequent computing power, after a very long period of having flat-lined at a small size, arose from rapid see-saw changes in the ancient African climate.
Hey, lookey what I just found, a free video of part 1 ..
Becoming Human Part 1 | NOVA | PBS Video (http://video.pbs.org/video/1312522241/)
that's cool, part 2 is on that page also. I'm glad they've come out with these as it makes things much easier in that I don't have to go by memory, which, speaking of my own, oftentimes sucks. lol
The variability hypothesis is that of paleoanthropologist Rick Potts, it suggests rapid climate change as a catalyst for human evolution, as you shall see in part 1.
Strong
12-11-2009, 11:35 AM
"Rights restrictions", can't view that one. :sqfrown:
"Rights restrictions", can't view that one. :sqfrown:Huh, geographical restrictions I suspect. Well I'm thinking that it may become available in a bootleg version soon, just have to keep an eye on the search results page.
Strong
12-11-2009, 11:44 AM
It'll be on TV over here one day.
ewomack
12-11-2009, 09:48 PM
We can watch your BBS stuff... why can't you see ours?
Oh I forgot... we're facists!!
Part 2 is on again tonight at midnight CST.
Strong
13-11-2009, 07:36 AM
We can watch your BBS stuff... why can't you see ours?
Oh I forgot... we're facists!!
Can you access any of the iPlayer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/) stuff from the BBC?
The other terrestrial channels have their own catch up service too, mainly with adverts though.
Just wondering! It would be a good way to watch some Brit TV. Else you are stuck with YouTube and the international service.
Ferre
13-11-2009, 08:06 AM
iPlayer is accessible from all over the world Strong, I know because I have been accessing it from all over the place already. Even from China.
Strong
13-11-2009, 09:34 AM
That's interesting to know Ferre. The reason I was thinking about it, was because a couple of weeks ago the Beeb showed a Horizon program that looked at consciousness. I thought it would be interesting background stuff to link to here, but I wasn't sure if anyone outside the UK could access it.
I doubt it is available now on iPlayer, because of course it is meant as a catch up service for people that miss it on TV. It is only available for a week after broadcast in most instances.
I like the way you can also listen to radio shows on it too.
Can you access any of the iPlayer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/) stuff from the BBC?
The other terrestrial channels have their own catch up service too, mainly with adverts though.
Just wondering! It would be a good way to watch some Brit TV. Else you are stuck with YouTube and the international service.This is what I get, Strongy..
"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only, but all BBC iPlayer Radio programmes are available to you. Why?
If you are in the UK and see this message please read this advice.
Go to Radio channels home page"
Strong
13-11-2009, 09:52 AM
That's really weird. How come Ferre can, but you can't, I have no explanation. :sqconfused:
Oh probably just some tit for tat thing with the countries. lol
Ferre
13-11-2009, 10:44 AM
That's interesting to know Ferre. The reason I was thinking about it, was because a couple of weeks ago the Beeb showed a Horizon program that looked at consciousness. I thought it would be interesting background stuff to link to here, but I wasn't sure if anyone outside the UK could access it.
I doubt it is available now on iPlayer, because of course it is meant as a catch up service for people that miss it on TV. It is only available for a week after broadcast in most instances.
I like the way you can also listen to radio shows on it too.
We have that in The Netherlands too, but they keep it archived, every single tv show that has been on Dutch tv can be viewed online.
Hehhe, this means that Americans can have a look at how uncensored tv looks like, you know, tv without bleeps or blanked out body parts or blanked out other stuff.
All those shows from all the broadcast stations can be found on one central website;
Uitzendinggemist.nl (http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl)
:sqwink:
Ps. We can even stream those shows on our mobile phones
Strong
13-11-2009, 11:00 AM
Ah that explains it. I thought you could see the BBC iPlayer site and programs that I had linked to in post #91. All is clear once more.
Sorry folk, move along, nothing to see. Well not at the BBC iPlayer site at least, well not unless you are in the UK.
"Did modern humans interbreed with Neanderthals or exterminate them? The program explores crucial evidence from the recent decoding of the Neanderthal genome."
A little snip from the part 3 description of Becoming Human which premiers this Tuesday on PBS.
I just finished watching part 2 again. What I really should do is watch each of the three parts at least 3 times. I find this series fascinating, and very thought provoking.
ewomack
15-11-2009, 10:02 AM
I've liked what I've seen, too... though I almost slept through the 1st part due to a lack of sleep the night before... I need a second viewing... Nova always does a good job with this sort of thing... I can't wait to see the series' depiction of how we slaughtered the Neanderthals...
Ferre
15-11-2009, 11:15 AM
..and more and more evidence turns up that suggests we may actually have eaten them. :sqlaugh:
Ferre
15-11-2009, 11:16 AM
Maybe the first homo sapiens were Russians? :sqlaugh:
ewomack
15-11-2009, 12:19 PM
Maybe someday someone will resurrect a Neanderthal so we can see what our ancestors tasted? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would fund that one to no end...
Part 3 premieres tomorrow at this time on PBS.
Becoming Human part 3 starts in 10 minutes.
Ferre
21-11-2009, 05:48 AM
This video sums it up in a nutshell;
wQOdNY-HdG0
That is an excellent video, Ferre, it really makes you think.
This Becoming Human series basically focuses on both scientific and common logical reasoning in an attempt to explain the relatively abrupt difference in two very closely related species of animal, monkey and human. The new theory is based in abrupt climate change.
"relatively abrupt" meaning relatively abrupt on the evolutionary time scale, as well as the nature of the abrupt differences, chiefly those residing in the obviously most important organ, the brain.
Strong
21-11-2009, 01:00 PM
I wonder if the current abrupt climate change will result in a similar change in humanity?
I wonder if the current abrupt climate change will result in a similar change in humanity?Well if it does then I suspect we'll be right clean out of our minds by then. lol
That is good statement. I'm having a bit of trouble with the question mark though. lol
Apparently the current abrupt climate change is nothing compared to the drastic climate changes that occurred in prehistoric Africa. Myself, I wouldn't even dare to venture a guess as to where we currently are on the climatological abruption scale.
I don't know though, it seems to me that 4 or 5 thousand years is a mighty short period of time in evolutionary terms, but if you think about it, a lot has changed. That is primarily due to brain evolution. The evolution is sudden. That is a given. The documentary offers evidence as to why this was so sudden.
There's clearly a marked difference in the brain evolution of primates within a significantly short period of evolutionary time, compared to that of past primate brain evolution, which had been virtually stagnant for a very long time prior to the onset of the change. It's a fascinating series.
The theory is that the abrupt brain change was concurrent with abrupt climate change and consequently a catalyst for this type of change.
The consensus is that all humans are descended from an original group of individuals as small as 600, from Africa.
Ferre
22-11-2009, 11:24 AM
One of the biggest mistakes homo sapiens makes in its search for understanding nature is their arrogance and blatant stupidity to believe they are of any importance in this universe.
They are not.
Just take the "Global warming issue", people, with the lowest kind they ever produced; politicians in a leading role tumble over each other in a shouting match whether global warming is or is not caused by humans, in their stupidity they totally ignore the real problem we face and that is that we indeed cause the chemical pollution that WILL kill us within a relatively short time, along with a lot of other species.
Whether the earth will be colder or warmer by the time that happens is of no relevance to the fact that our own produced pollution will kill us.
However, this by no means threatens this planet, as for the planet's point of view there is no "loss", other species will thrive like never before after we (homo sapiens) are gone, even the pollution that kills humans is organic in nature, already there are single cell organisms that show mutations that allow them to use those organic chemicals, deadly for us, as food for those single cell organisms.
The evolution process is not exclusive for humans, after we are long gone this planet will still have life on it and knowing the mechanism of evolution it will even develop new intelligent species, maybe in a few million of years arachnids will literally rule the world, and will teach their children about the stupid species that developed into intellectual beings before them but were too retarded to prevent themselves from getting extinct by their own means.
:sqwink:
Ferre
22-11-2009, 11:34 AM
People, in general, don't realize (mainly because of poor education) that we humans are not at the top of the evolutionary scale.
The top of the evolutionary scale in terms of success are the single cell organisms, most of them do not even die. They do not die? You may ask, yes indeed, bacillus do not die unless they are killed by fire of a chemical, they just reproduce into eternity just like they have been doing since the down of time, they split into other single cell organisms endlessly, talk about success.
Fact is that the more complex of structure species are at the multiple-cells level, the more vulnerable they become to survive changes in their environment. That's the reason why mammals will be the first to become extinct due to our pollution, this pollution affects those organisms the most and they are the least capable of adjusting.
It is known that there were as many as 20 different human-like species existing at the same time a few million years ago.
It is now thought that we did not displace the Neanderthals but rather interbred with them as homo heidelbergensis to become the species we homo sapiens are today, after which the Neanderthal species simply vanished from the fossil record.
We homo sapiens (humans) are the last human-like species standing.
Neanderthals were actually more successful than our species prior to their disappearance, they were around twice as long, had slightly larger brains, and used the same tools that we as homo heidelbergensis did.
It has been discovered that Neanderthals close to half a million years ago engaged in ritual by way of leaving a rare, pink quartzite stone hand axe alongside their dead.
Neanderthals, the last surviving species before we took 1st place and the most like us (homo sapien), had a rough life. Most of the male skeletons out of the approximately 30 found had bone fractures. That is an amazing testament to just how rough life was back then.
Most only lived to about 30 years old.
The conclusion that we and Neanderthals mixed was derived from sequencing the Neanderthal genome.
This is coming on on PBS in two hours, it looks pretty interesting.
Darwin's Dilemma: Mystery Of The Cambrin Fossil Record
Sun, 11/22, 11:00 PM 1 hr 30 min
Nature
Experts discuss the discovery of complex creatures dating back hundreds of millions of years that completely defy the theory of evolution, as their genetic make-up is too advanced for that period in early life forms according to evolution.
Here's a two and a half minute trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-1nXb5uH8Q
oops, it's not on PBS but TBN, I don't get that station dang it. It'll probably be on PBS sometime too if it hasn't already.
Or maybe not, I don't see it in the line up. Blast.
Neanderthals, the last surviving species before we took 1st place and the most like us (homo sapien), had a rough life. Most of the male skeletons out of the approximately 30 found had bone fractures. That is an amazing testament to just how rough life was back then.Correction, it was homo heidelbergensis, the one before neanderthal that they found 30 complete skeletons of, and they are the ones that left a pink quartzite hand axe in the grave half a million years ago. The grave was at the bottom of a deep shaft at the end of a long complex labyrinth of tunnels deep underground, it is the most inaccessible archaeological site in the world, there's a lot of crawling required to get there.
Out of the twenty types of humans since the first homo erectus 6 million years ago, some were on their way to becoming us and others were evolutionary dead ends. The consensus seems to be that we modern humans are evolved heidelbergensis with some neanderthal mixed in.
The neanderthals vanished, but that actually seems to be because our species, heidelbergensis, absorbed their species, therefore it appears that homo sapiens are a mix of the two species consecutively prior.
Of course heidelbergensis vanished as well, into us, the last species to survive, homo sapien.
We are the last human-like species left standing. That is pretty amazing.
Correction, heidelbergensis eventually became neanderthal which became us (homo sapien).
I'm having a bit of a time getting this stuff straight. I guess I'll need to watch the damned thing about a dozen times. Shoot.
It's hard to put everything together correctly when it's in 3 parts, but not nearly as hard as it was digging up all the fossils and formulating this theory, I suspect. lol
Cryren8972
24-11-2009, 08:07 AM
Homo heidelbergensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis)
This claims there were bones dating back only 400,000 and 600,000 years ago. I wonder if that means they found different sets...the ones your speaking of millions of years earlier? So they were around that long? Or is Wikipedia once again wrong?
Homo heidelbergensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis)
This claims there were bones dating back only 400,000 and 600,000 years ago. I wonder if that means they found different sets...the ones your speaking of millions of years earlier? So they were around that long? Or is Wikipedia once again wrong?Can you reference a quote or quotes of mine with this post please, Cry? I said that they dated to about half a million years, I'm not sure what your question is.
400,000 and 600,000 years is a date range, I suspect because the same type skeletons have been found within it. They just round it off to about half a million, close to half a million etc.
And the only bones that I spoke of that were millions of years earlier than that so far have been the appearance of homo erectus 6 million years ago.
Cryren8972
24-11-2009, 11:39 AM
Never mind...I had read several of your posts back to back...
and silly me thought of them in sequence without realizing you were talking of two different things. LOL!
In other words, ignore that post please....
Never mind...I had read several of your posts back to back...
and silly me thought of them in sequence without realizing you were talking of two different things. LOL!
In other words, ignore that post please....Ok.
I'm going to see if I can dig up three links to the three vids, I know I can find at least part one and part two, and then post them here for easy reference.
Ok here are links to all three PBS videos:
Becoming Human Part 1 | NOVA | PBS Video (http://video.pbs.org/video/1312522241/)
Becoming Human Part 2 | NOVA | PBS Video (http://video.pbs.org/video/1319997127/)
Becoming Human Part 3 | NOVA | PBS Video (http://video.pbs.org/video/1327194805/)
I suspect it's just a matter of a short time until people that cannot currently access them will at least be able to find repro's of them on the search results pages.
It might help to remember that the 3 links that I posted post before last are at the bottom of page 7 of this topic.
7 is the number of man.
no wait.. that's a different topic, n/m. lol
ewomack
28-11-2009, 03:28 PM
Let's change the title to: "This Thread: what the hell is it all about!" :sqwink:
ewomack
28-11-2009, 03:28 PM
Notice how I did a winky...
Well Strongy named it, I think that he should get at least half the blame. lol
vectro
28-11-2009, 04:26 PM
This thread was created and the discussion took place before I signed up, so I wanted to throw in my 2 cents here.
No, in actual fact that is not how it is, Ferre, and it is not reality, it is theory and you know it.
If scientists accept that particular theory in the standard model it's because there is more evidence supporting that theory than any other. It has also been put up to peer review for a long time.
If man evolved from apes,
why are there still apes?
Humans didn't evolve from apes, we branched off from a similar species. When you diagram the evolution of species it looks more like a tree than a straight line.
I've always held the same view, that looking for "Earth Like" planets in order to find life is short sighted.
It's a great method for finding Earth Like life, but, as we've seen here on Earth, life can survive in even the harshest conditions.
I suspect the reasons that we haven't found life elsewhere have more to do with our own limitations, rather than real possibilities.
I agree, too, that it's short-sighted. To find one single cell of life on another celestial body besides Earth would be an amazing discovery, regardless of the conditions of that planet.
Ferre, what example can you give me where scientists have produced atoms from light, atoms that actually evolve? And Strongy, yes, that is the Gaia hypothesis, and it is exactly what it said, a hypothesis, not "fact".
Darwin observed evolution in water. That seems to be a common starting point. I think evolution has more to do with cells than atoms, but I'm not an expert.
The end purpose of all life?
Death.
Death isn't an end purpose, it's just part of the process because new developments always take place.
Vectro,
I said this:
I(t) doesn't make sense to me for a few supposedly common chemicals under the right conditions to produce life that evolves, no matter how much time is involved.Then Ferre said this:
..but that's how it is Atom. (...)Then I said this:
No, in actual fact that is not how it is, Ferre, and it is not reality, it is theory and you know it.Then you said this:
If scientists accept that particular theory in the standard model it's because there is more evidence supporting that theory than any other. It has also been put up to peer review for a long time.(...)And in response I will now say:
Chemicals and gasses evolving into cells is the standard model?
vectro
28-11-2009, 07:28 PM
Chemicals and gasses evolving into cells is the standard model?
I don't know because I don't have as much time as I'd like to read things. But, everything has cause and effect. I know planets can form from a big pile of gasses. Everything alive on a planet is made of cells AFAIK, planets, plants, animals.
My point was that even if something is a theory, the scientific community wouldn't stick to it without evidence and peer review.
I don't know because I don't have as much time as I'd like to read things. But, everything has cause and effect. I know planets can form from a big pile of gasses. Everything alive on a planet is made of cells AFAIK, planets, plants, animals.
My point was that even if something is a theory, the scientific community wouldn't stick to it without evidence and peer review.I see but what I'm questioning is if scientists in general are actually sticking to that or if it's just a few or what, for all I know it has been discovered how to grow a cell from chemicals and gasses, I actually don't know the answer to that so I thought I'd ask.
vectro
28-11-2009, 07:47 PM
I'm pretty sure.. and I maybe incorrect as my knowledge is limited.. but cells are formed from old cells but no one can trace back the origin of the first cells.
The Gaia hypothesis basically attempts to unite the two types of evolution, that of matter and of life, by stating that cells evolved from molecules that evolved from atoms that came from light. But as I pointed out earlier in the thread, light is composed of photons, not atoms.
vectro
28-11-2009, 08:19 PM
Too bad LHC doesn't work or maybe we'd at least know why matter has mass.
I heard something about it breaking down, I think there's a thread here somewhere about it, I don't recall reading or posting in that one though. Strongy might have posted it.
ewomack
29-11-2009, 12:42 AM
The entropy thread... if there wasn't one there should be...
Strong
29-11-2009, 08:34 AM
I heard something about it breaking down, I think there's a thread here somewhere about it, I don't recall reading or posting in that one though. Strongy might have posted it.
The LHC is back up and running as of last week! They made repairs and have been lowering it's temperature for sometime now, last week they actually made two beams collide for the first time in over a year. All is going well so far and the world has not been swallowed up by any rogue black holes.
Yes there is a thread about the Large Hadron Collider (http://btwimho.com/showthread.php?t=735) in the Science section.
Strong
29-11-2009, 08:35 AM
The entropy thread... if there wasn't one there should be...
OK! But you have to explain what you mean by entropy :sqbiggrin:
Strong
29-11-2009, 08:39 AM
Let's change the title to: "This Thread: what the hell is it all about!" :sqwink:
Notice how I did a winky...
Well Strongy named it, I think that he should get at least half the blame. lol
Well, Atom wanted the thread, so if he agrees I don't mind changing the name. But for SEO purposes, apparently, it is best not to change the names of old threads.
Personally I think we need an evolution thread and a separate "What the hell is it all about" thread. The later is more a philosophical question, the former more a science.
The LHC is back up and running as of last week! They made repairs and have been lowering it's temperature for sometime now, last week they actually made two beams collide for the first time in over a year. All is going well so far and the world has not been swallowed up by any rogue black holes.
Yes there is a thread about the Large Hadron Collider (http://btwimho.com/showthread.php?t=735) in the Science section.Ok, thanks for the update. I don't remember posting in that thread but I see that I did. I'm afraid I'll have to quit posting if my memory does not improve.
Well, Atom wanted the thread, so if he agrees I don't mind changing the name. But for SEO purposes, apparently, it is best not to change the names of old threads.
Personally I think we need an evolution thread and a separate "What the hell is it all about" thread. The later is more a philosophical question, the former more a science.I think that your choice of title was fine.
Yes best not to go changing titles, I agree.
What Darwin Never Knew is premiering tonight at 7pm CST on NOVA. It's 2 hours long. It looks like it will be very interesting.
"What Darwin Never Knew"
Scientists work to confirm Darwin's insights regarding the theory of evolution, and in the course of their research they make stunning discoveries that offer a connection between evolution and the development of the embryo.
Here's a brief preview:
nxkjgqwilmc
Ok. That was really excellent. A must see.
So far, it's looking like we are descended from fish.
Brian
29-12-2009, 10:40 PM
Atom, check out The Greatest Show on Earth (http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787) if you're interested in reading a rather excellent book that will really explain evolution to you. It was written by one of the foremost freethinkers around today, Richard Dawkins. Videos online are what first got me interested in evolution but I never really understood some of even the basic parts of it until I started reading books like The Selfish Gene (http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1) (Dawkins), The Blind Watchmaker (http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3) (Dawkins), and quite a few writings by Stephen J. Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould).
Atom, check out The Greatest Show on Earth (http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787) if you're interested in reading a rather excellent book that will really explain evolution to you. It was written by one of the foremost freethinkers around today, Richard Dawkins. Videos online are what first got me interested in evolution but I never really understood some of even the basic parts of it until I started reading books like The Selfish Gene (http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1) (Dawkins), The Blind Watchmaker (http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3) (Dawkins), and quite a few writings by Stephen J. Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould).Brian, the documentary I just posted contains the latest work and discoveries by scientists that are at the very forefront of evolution research, you and everyone should seriously watch this if you can. It's all the latest in a nutshell.
Brian
29-12-2009, 10:54 PM
Yup, I worked tonight and missed it but one blog I follow by a professor of biology (PZ Myers at the University of Minnesota) wrote a blog while watching it (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/evo-devo_on_nova.php). He said it was pretty good so I'll be finding it online sometime :)
I am seriously astounded by what researchers are finding. Really, everyone please try to see this documentary.
I was interrupted half way through it and have to watch it again, but I know there will be re-runs soon, tonight was just the premier.
Yup, I worked tonight and missed it but one blog I follow by a professor of biology (PZ Myers at the University of Minnesota) wrote a blog while watching it (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/evo-devo_on_nova.php). He said it was pretty good so I'll be finding it online sometime :)I read the blog entry and all I can say is that they got human-centric for a reason, and it has nothing to do with vanity whatsoever. I think that the professor is being a little over-critical.
Brian
29-12-2009, 11:18 PM
He's known for being non-apologetic in his views (which is the reason I like him)
But, most importantly, he said it was good. Coming from PZ Myers, that's a HUGE compliment.
He's known for being non-apologetic in his views (which is the reason I like him)
But, most importantly, he said it was good. Coming from PZ Myers, that's a HUGE compliment.I see. lol
I can't wait to see it again. I keep typing up key issue posts that I end up deleting because I didn't watch it well, I actually missed the second half, I told my neighbor to come down to my place and smoke, so he did, right at the wrong time, lol. He doesn't smoke in his house because of his son, so he goes outside, but it's been a bit cold for that lately.
Brian
29-12-2009, 11:42 PM
I hear ya. Windchill right now -15 so I won't be going outside for a smoke tonight either :D
Ok well it looks like you are worse off up there than we are down here, it's actually above freezing here atm, just 2 degrees though.
Oh, and no snow down here. Zilch. That fact is somehow not hurting my feelings at this time. lol
Brian
29-12-2009, 11:59 PM
Haha
The snow from the big storm last week is almost gone. It melted fast! But we've been having 45MPH winds today on top of the cold temperature and it's been hell. My knuckles are permanently purple:smow:
Ok well sounds like you've basically been spared up there in the snow department so far, that's good. Except for the skiers I mean. lol
Holy crap, the name of that smiley is smow, I couldn't believe my eyes so I had to look twice. lol
Muddy
30-12-2009, 01:10 AM
Yup, I worked tonight and missed it but one blog I follow by a professor of biology (PZ Myers at the University of Minnesota) wrote a blog while watching it (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/evo-devo_on_nova.php). He said it was pretty good so I'll be finding it online sometime :)
Should be here (http://www.hulu.com/search?query=NOVA&st=1) before long.
Ferre
30-12-2009, 05:40 AM
I hate HULU, they discriminate non-Americans. :sqmad:
Muddy
30-12-2009, 12:25 PM
I hate HULU, they discriminate non-Americans. :sqmad:
I know. It sucks. But since Atom and Brian are Americans they can do the Hulu all night long!
Brian
30-12-2009, 01:13 PM
:whoo:
I hate HULU, they discriminate non-Americans. :sqmad:Maybe they have plans to expand.
vectro
05-01-2010, 12:05 PM
I hate HULU, they discriminate non-Americans. :sqmad:
Tried using a proxy?
tsdesigns
05-01-2010, 03:28 PM
I hate HULU, they discriminate non-Americans. :sqmad:
Whats HULU?
vectro
05-01-2010, 03:57 PM
Whats HULU?
Legal free TV show episodes. Hulu - Watch your favorites. Anytime. For free. (http://www.hulu.com)
tsdesigns
05-01-2010, 04:55 PM
Legal free TV show episodes. Hulu - Watch your favorites. Anytime. For free. (http://www.hulu.com)
I see...
We have some things like that here in the UK. Mostly just channel specific ones though (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4 on Demand).
I use them quite a bit :)
This is premiering tonight at 7pm CST on PBS.
The Human Spark: Becoming Us (http://archaeology.about.com/b/2010/01/03/the-human-spark-becoming-us.htm)
I just finished watching it and it was actually quite good, I will recommend everyone watch it that's able, the vid may be available soon, I'll keep an eye out and post a link if I see one.
This first episode of The Human Spark, "Becoming Us", has a few interesting new findings.
Muddy
06-01-2010, 10:12 PM
http://www.btwimho.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=766&stc=1&d=1262833942
vectro
07-01-2010, 01:32 AM
I saw the first half of this on TV. It's an hour and a half long. Ben Stein interviews leading scientists behind the evolution debate like Richard Dawkins and also people behind the intelligent design argument. I've only seen an hour of it I'm not sure what conclusion was drawn, but it's an interesting documentary so far.
-518637672896741579
Brian
07-01-2010, 12:50 PM
I use to respect Ben Stein (mostly from Ferris) until he started becoming a loon.
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
An excerpt from an interview he did with a Christian broadcasting company.
Brian
07-01-2010, 01:03 PM
I've only seen an hour of it I'm not sure what conclusion was drawn...
This is what the Anti-Defamation League said about the movie,
The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.
Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.
Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.
Also a good read on P.Z. Myers blog (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php) about how the production company coerced him into appearing in the film.
Muddy
07-01-2010, 01:03 PM
Is that the video where he tries to trip Hawkins up? Trying to pin him down to having said something that he didn't say?
vectro
07-01-2010, 02:14 PM
This is what the Anti-Defamation League said about the movie,
The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.
Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.
Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.
I kind of got the feeling it was slanted toward the Intelligent Design side of the debate. I managed to watch enough of the film to see the part where he went to Germany. He spoke with someone while taking a tour of one of the Nazi death centers. I was surprised that Stein, being a Jew himself, took that angle on it. He's also a smart guy, so that also makes it surprising.
Also a good read on P.Z. Myers blog (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php) about how the production company coerced him into appearing in the film.
Good read.
Muddy
09-01-2010, 02:59 AM
Killer Whales Are Evolving Into Two Different Species : Planetsave (http://planetsave.com/blog/2010/01/08/killer-whales-are-evolving-into-two-different-species/)
(...)Killer Whales Are Evolving Into Two Different Species (...)That's how evolution works.
Ferre
10-01-2010, 09:03 AM
Is that the video where he tries to trip Hawkins up? Trying to pin him down to having said something that he didn't say?
Yes it is. Ben Stein is a snake oil salesman like all other creationists/intelligent design advocates. All they have for arguments are lies, smears and deception.
Here's a summary of his lies and deceit in that so called "documentary" of his;
Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks (http://www.expelledexposed.com/) (created and maintained by the National Center for Science Education)
I didn't know that ID advocates believe that species appeared suddenly, I would have thought that serious IDers would have incorporated evolution theory into their ID theory by now.
I see no reason at all why there can't be a logical ID theory, but without combining evolution theory, it'll never happen.
Strong
10-01-2010, 10:41 AM
I don't think that evolution theory needs ID, but you seem to be saying that ID needs evolution, for ID to make sense. That's interesting. I had thought the two were mutually exclusive.
Ferre
10-01-2010, 11:18 AM
I see no reason at all why there can't be a logical ID theory, but without combining evolution theory, it'll never happen.
If ID had any logic to it the advocates would at least use a little bit of that, but they do not, all they have instead of logic is intellectual dishonesty, lies and deceit.
The problem with ID is that it attempts to misrepresent real evolutionary science in a deceitful manner to back up their claims, reason for that is the simple fact that the real evolutionary science does not support their claims at all, on contrary, it often contradicts those claims.
Here is the latest example of their dishonest ways;
Casey Luskin embarrasses himself again : Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/casey_luskin_embarrasses_himse.php)
Man, I so hate snake oil salesmen. :sqmad:
I don't think that evolution theory needs ID,Nor do I.
but you seem to be saying that ID needs evolution, for ID to make sense.Correct, that is precisely what I am saying, however, I have no idea whatsoever why you felt the need to use the word "but", that makes no sense to me.
That's interesting. I had thought the two were mutually exclusive.By the narrow minded definition in Ferre's link in post #198, they are. But what logical person would adhere to such a nonsensical definition? None, IMO. Species appeared suddenly? I don't think so, that notion is simply absurd in light of current scientific evidence.
Ferre
10-01-2010, 01:10 PM
IBHEsEshhLs
Strong
21-03-2010, 11:43 AM
5RLU4-kySow
Strong
21-03-2010, 11:44 AM
The problem of the eye:
No7UCB2meF0
I might also say that some animals have better developed eyes than us, for instance some birds that can see much further, in the dark and bees for instance that see different wave lengths of light.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.