Re: What Evolution Left Behind

by Vibe Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:42 am

Here's a fact for you - Most likely outcome on any random subject on the internet is religion wars

by beatrixasdfghjk. Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:48 am

Anyway, this thread is about useless organs, can we keep it on topic instead of arguing about religion?

by che Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:06 pm

the scientific meaning of the world "theory" is different from the commonly perceived meaning... we really need a new word for these things or creationists will keep desperately hanging on to the word "theory" and using it to discredit evolution, which is no less a fact than gravity tbh

by Lord Spencer Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:55 pm

che wrote:the scientific meaning of the world "theory" is different from the commonly perceived meaning... we really need a new word for these things or creationists will keep desperately hanging on to the word "theory" and using it to discredit evolution, which is no less a fact than gravity tbh

If is as much an established theory as gravity (which really was reestablished several times if you bother to follow the current astronomical research, with string and dark matter thesis's) then I see no reason why a huge budget is allocated into further research into the origins of the theory.

The fact is that gravity exists, and creatures exist. How both came to be is where the theories come in play.

Simply put, the mechanics of evolution just as the mechanics of gravity are still up to grasp. I read many books on evolution creationism, creationist evolution, and other theories and none bother to actually give some facts. All that it is is conjecture, since fossils are rare and inconclusive and observation of any thing would take hundreds of years at least.

Not to mention that the current theory of evolution is grossly different than the Darwin theory. As genetics came to play. Some theory suggest that the whole evolution is a random mutation.

Regardless, acting as an intellectual superior over all theories is exactly what the Church of the 16 hundreds did, the Ottomans of the 17 hundreds, and the universities to Newton himself.

by Adit Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:58 pm

ali8775 wrote:
Adit wrote:
VibeTribe wrote:
Adit wrote:lol again believers desperately trying to prove god exists

A bigger facepalm moment is you making fun of someone's faith TBF...
whome exactly making fun personally?

I have every right to say god doesnt exist as far as they cant give me a single piece of evidence.

the Qu'ran has predicted several things correctly , scientific facts as well.

All holy books including the holy book of the religion which im "part of" proves nothing about gods existence.

They screams about gods creation with out even giving proofs on gods existence.All they can make is a counter question when any one question about it. :coffee:

by che Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:49 pm

Lord Spencer wrote:

If is as much an established theory as gravity (which really was reestablished several times if you bother to follow the current astronomical research, with string and dark matter thesis's) then I see no reason why a huge budget is allocated into further research into the origins of the theory.

first of all, any evidence for this "huge budget"?

secondly, why was the hadron collider built? i mean, we have already had established, sufficiently proven theories so why bother continuing research right?

of course there's still research into evolution ffs, just as there is research in every single academic field because we want to expand our horizons and we never know what we might find out...

Simply put, the mechanics of evolution just as the mechanics of gravity are still up to grasp. I read many books on evolution creationism, creationist evolution, and other theories and none bother to actually give some facts. All that it is is conjecture, since fossils are rare and inconclusive and observation of any thing would take hundreds of years at least.

i'm sorry to inform you but you've read the wrong books... the greatest show on earth by dawkins would be a good start as it's the easiest to comprehend, you can do deeper research if you want to

and as far as fossils go, of course they are rare... just because you don't have pictures of every second of your life doesn't mean you never lived

oh and as for "would take hundreds of years to observe", look up lenski experiment

Not to mention that the current theory of evolution is grossly different than the Darwin theory. As genetics came to play. Some theory suggest that the whole evolution is a random mutation.

it's not vastly different and random mutation plays perfectly in line with darwin's theory which is about which mutations are preferred in the long run and not about how they came to existence

Regardless, acting as an intellectual superior over all theories is exactly what the Church of the 16 hundreds did, the Ottomans of the 17 hundreds, and the universities to Newton himself.

no, acting as intellectual superior WITHOUT HAVING ANY PROOF is what the church did... the evidence for evolution is anything but inconclusive, of course there are certain gaps, like there are in every other natural science and theory, doesn't make them any less correct

the issue today is the debate between people who use decades worth of research as proof vs people who use an old book that directly contradicts all the above mentioned research as proof, and the book is correct because it says so in the book

acting intellectually superior is the least we could do to enlighten people tbh

by Adit Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:30 pm

the issue today is the debate between people who use decades worth of research as proof vs people who use an old book that directly contradicts all the above mentioned research as proof, and the book is correct because it says so in the book

Fantastic use of words What Evolution Left Behind - Page 2 Tumblr_la2rp8bgAw1qa6ql2o1_500

by Lord Spencer Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:36 pm

Look up MIT, Cornell, and Princeton. The three institutions are doing heavy research on evolution.

I did read up on the Lenski experiment, and according to a professor @ Cornell it would require a hundred years for the experiments true significance to be fully realized. Now, it is not showing any significant trend, and while the increase in cell size is a significant effect, it was hardly groundbreaking. Under the forced conditions of the experiment, it was expected to happen. I think waiting more time and starting other experiments in the same line would be more valuable in the long run.

Even then, this only analogous to the behavior of cells as opposed to a larger body. Just as the behavior of quantum mechanics is different from macro mechanics. Relating the former to the latter is something we are not even close to getting.

As for the fossils, the rarity of them required previous evolution scientists in the late 19 century and the early 20th century to purely base their thesis on conjecture and logical arguments. Only in the last 30 years with a deeper understanding of genetics do any research into genetic biology is credible.

It shows you how that what was accepted 60 years ago is not accepted now. In fact, the theory of evolution they teach in schools is so underdeveloped and outdated its funny they still teach it as "fact", especially when the first thing they tell you at a college level evolutionary biology class is to throw all that crap out of your mind.

Darwin suggested that mutations would prefer the more adaptable, but that is not true as mutations are just that. They come randomly and some make sense but most do not. He also used an example of a family whose arms are cut off generation after generation. He argued that the family would cease to grow arms and would instead have something more like an "arm-leg" which does not make sense genetically.

Darwin simply did not have the tools to make a better theory than he did. And him, just as Newton are then corrected.

On the church, I have a deep fascination with history. I would recommend you read the arguments the church's scientists used to back their theories. In a logical level, their arguments were very good, and at an era where empirical data was hard to come by, logic was the only proof. Galileo (sorry for butchering the name) did not have a good logical argument to back him up, and no one else had the skills to back his data. The church then ostracized him. Very much like Bohr was ostracized by the scientific community back in the day.

To say that the church had no brains other than a book is lazy IMO. They had brilliant men in their ranks, too bad they were too arrogant to get their heads out of their asses . Not to mention too politically convuloted to function properly, like present day U.S.A.

Saying religious zeal was the only factor on the church's stance against change is lazy as well. Politics and economy play a larger role than religion which is a tool, as much as political thought, ideals, and everything people identify to.

Finally, you obviously have not been following the neo-creationist theories floating around. Also, as long as the theory of evolution has holes in it, they should stop teaching the watered down version to children n schools. Either step it up and give a deeper course in school. It is annoying for professors to have to reteach the whole thing again. They need to destroy the foundation then rebuild which sucks for them. (I am talking about the U.S. biology course here, which is dumped down to the max).

The intellectual superiority is present by going into a stance thinking you are certainly correct while the other party is certainly wrong.

by Jack Daniels Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:54 pm

che wrote:the issue today is the debate between people who use decades worth of research as proof vs people who use an old book that directly contradicts all the above mentioned research as proof, and the book is correct because it says so in the book

Winner!

by zizzle Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:26 pm

che wrote:the issue today is the debate between people who use decades worth of research as proof vs people who use an old book that directly contradicts all the above mentioned research as proof, and the book is correct because it says so in the book

Lord Spencer wrote:

On the church, I have a deep fascination with history. I would recommend you read the arguments the church's scientists used to back their theories. In a logical level, their arguments were very good, and at an era where empirical data was hard to come by, logic was the only proof. Galileo (sorry for butchering the name) did not have a good logical argument to back him up, and no one else had the skills to back his data. The church then ostracized him. Very much like Bohr was ostracized by the scientific community back in the day.

To say that the church had no brains other than a book is lazy IMO. They had brilliant men in their ranks, too bad they were too arrogant to get their heads out of their asses . Not to mention too politically convuloted to function properly, like present day U.S.A.

Saying religious zeal was the only factor on the church's stance against change is lazy as well. Politics and economy play a larger role than religion which is a tool, as much as political thought, ideals, and everything people identify to.

Finally, you obviously have not been following the neo-creationist theories floating around. Also, as long as the theory of evolution has holes in it, they should stop teaching the watered down version to children n schools. Either step it up and give a deeper course in school. It is annoying for professors to have to reteach the whole thing again. They need to destroy the foundation then rebuild which sucks for them. (I am talking about the U.S. biology course here, which is dumped down to the max).

The intellectual superiority is present by going into a stance thinking you are certainly correct while the other party is certainly wrong.

by Ali Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:54 pm

http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

by shinigami99 Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:56 am

Evolution is a mainstay of modern science. It is not going anywhere anytime soon

How it happened(either by Natural selection or other different theories) is still up in the air...but Natural Selection is "winning"

by Albiceleste Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:29 am

The BoyWonder wrote:A theory is NOT a FACT. A FACT is PROVEN, and it's there for all to see - not debatable, a theory is NOT something everyone might agree on, and thus it can not be A fact - because it's something debatable.

You can prove religion wrong, but you can't prove or disprove the existence of a higher power/creater/God.

I believe we know the definition of the words theory and fact Very Happy

by Sponsored content