| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Horned Loa
Guardians of the Merchant
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Post Count: 2214
Location: Ceresfjellet
96000 Potch
1000 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:38 am Post subject: |
  |
|
Alright then. Since I was the one that suggested you create this topic I do feel its about time I made a post in it haha. I was going to make one sooner but Harmonia is keeping me very busy indeed any time I come online.
I myself do not believe in god, heaven or hell and thus support science as I feel it explains the events that take place with logic as a basis. I for one believe that the human did evolve from the ape and agree with most of your original arguments.
| FF6Sage wrote: |
| "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." I find nothing wrong with this statement, even though in the science world a theory and a fact differ only slightly. |
Well in reality you should approach everything with an open-mind as every idea you read is human made and each and every idea could and probably is flawed as its based on further human made assumptions. I do like this sentence though. :mrgreen:
As for fact and theory differing slightly....well thats something I would object to. Fact is something which you cannot argue and something that has been proven over right and cannot be argued otherwise. An example would be a simple mathematical equation of 1+1=2. That is a fact and cannot be argued unless the same symbols were applied to a different language in which case the same principles would still apply. A theory however is something to which you'll always have two sides about. The theoretical sciences, such as Psychology, Philosophy and Sociology never truly have a clean cut answer as they are always based on theories and "what ifs". This is not to say that mathematics doesn't have loopholes and inaccuracies but certain things have been proven to be true.
| Queen Sophita wrote: |
| I think that evolution should be taught in our schools |
I 100% absolutely agree with you here as I feel it would tech people to view things with an open mind. I personally feel that most students would have a far greater benefit from a subject like philosophy/psychology/sociology than certain peripherals such as art, music, certain sciences or metal classes for example. I'm not saying that any of those are bad, but they should be kept on a "to be chosen" basis as they do lead towards a specialization where as theorizing about history and philosophy can teach a person not only how to think with logic and from many different viewpoints but it would also encourage the flow of new ideas, which is something I feel deep down everyone has. If we are taught to express ourselves and our ideas from the start we'd all be better off.
| Iscalio wrote: |
| Here in central Europe evolution is taught in all schools as fact, and nobody would ever think about changing that. I never encountered "Creationism" (which is not very Christian anyway) here at all. |
Saying that all schools teach evolution is generalization which is something I try to shy away from. I know that the schooling in Europe is extensive though and they are generally forced to study just about every topic you can think off. Out of curiosity, where exactly in Europe are you?
| Lord Dredd wrote: |
| I believe in evolution in it's base form that things will change. When you learn something new you are evolving in that your understanding and intelligence has just changed. As for the "theory of evolution", that is something I disagree with. To say that we evolved from pond-scum millions of years ago is to say the least warped in my perspective. |
Sorry to sound like a prick here but I kind of believe the exact opposite of you. When we learn something we do NOT evolve but simply gain more experience for the latter part of our lives. Our children do not get smarter because we ourselves learnt something but because we teach it to them. Evolution however is the process of adaptation to fit the environment within which you live in. There is no doubt in my mind that we did evolve from a lower life form, however I'm not saying that we evolved from a single cell organism even though it is a possibility. Your objection seems to sprout from your disgust at the idea that we evolved from something so simple. A similar reason why many religious people chose not to believe in the theory of Evolution and the survival of the fittest law is because it would make life nihilistic in their eyes. Those who are out for pure truth however, generally do not deny the fact that maybe life has no meaning, or that maybe that meaning isn't as great as we all hoped it would be.
| Arcana wrote: |
| Edit: the term used in Darwin's paper was "Natural Selection", not survival of the fittest or evolution. |
These three terms all imply the same basic idea which is why they are used interchangeably.
| Pyroflame wrote: |
| Well....in essence, both theories have relativity to the subject, those being evolution and creation. Just....not direct creation. Evolution must be true, as we've technically proven it possible in science. |
This would all depend on the field of science being 100% accurate. If science is as accurate as we believe than the theory is more or less a definite, however chances are that the tools scientists used, which in this case would be science itself as well as the equipment they trust, to figure out point of origin could have been wrong.
| SARSadmin wrote: |
| It's also odd to hear people "believing" in a scientific theory, because theory is not a mere hypothesis. A theory has a lot of actual proof to support it. However, there is always an element of doubt with science, even those that are scientific laws--if proof that counters it is found, even those laws must be changed. There are no absolutes in science, unlike in religion. For that purpose, "believing in science" sort of goes against the spirit of science. |
Well this is something new. I understand what you say completely but it is something I never really thought of before. I do question the theories of science as well as mathematics and many other ideas we interpret as fact, but to believe in science does seem to eradicate its actual purpose. I guess this just backs up my theory that science is just as full of loopholes as mathematics, different forms of communication and pretty much everything humanity ever created. The funny thing is that even with all those mistakes and loopholes, we still move on and advance culturally and technologically. Makes you wonder if something great can be built off of a basis which is clearly mistaken.
| FF6Sage wrote: |
| Coming from pond scum? I have a problem with that too. I have no trouble thinking of animals adapting, but proteins and such adapting over millions of years into bacteria and so on. If over thousands of years we deviate from apes by only a few percent, then in billions of years, could we really change from one celled to billions of cells? That sounds far-fetched to me. |
You seem to be the first one to have a rational explanation for this theory, however it does still seem a possibility. The difference between an ape and a human is astonishing to the naked eye yet biologically we are not that dissimilar. Multiply that change by a few thousand times and it wouldn't sound so farfetched. If a single cell organism evolves into a somewhat advanced organism in say a thousand and that advanced organism evolves lets say into a tadpole for example. That tadpole would grow dependant on the food supplies. Over time it could easily turn into a larger fish, which in yet another few thousand years can start chasing coastal food and evolve into a frog. The difference between the two looks extreme when we look at them but when the genetics are compared the two seem to be very alike in composition.
An explanation of why humans do not further evolve is because at the moment we do not need anything which we cannot readily acquire. Even those that are incapable of reproduction can still have a chance of having children with the help of science. Those that are weak and frail do not need to hunt and forage for food, but can use their artistic talents or their brains to generate money, which in turn provides food and a shelter. There is nothing to say that evolution didn't work at a much faster pace at an earlier time throughout history as circumstances might just have required organisms to adjust at a rapid pace to keep up with other organisms and survive.
| Lord Saben wrote: |
| As for evolutionism vs creationism why does it need to be one or the other? Only the most fundamentalist groups would believe that creationism excludes evolution. In my church growing up I was taught that MAYBE God used evolution of his means of creation. And I still hold a similar belief now, I think evolution is an observable phenomenon that there is no reason to doubt, yet I also believe in a supreme being that has powers of "creation", and I believe that more than likely "God" uses evolution as his tool for creation. |
The reason why it is generally one or another is because Evolutionism has some form of scientific base behind it and people believe that it can be proven where as creationism will always hang on the idea of faith. Either you believe it or you don't but there is no way to prove it. I for one do not believe in creationism, but I have many theories on how life began. None of which can be proven though.
| The Absoloute One Lord Saben wrote: |
| The thing so many people get so wrong with evolution though is that they think it needs a purpose. It might have a purpose, but it doesn't need one, no scientific theory needs a purpose. Evolution simply says "sometimes when a creature reproduces its offspring are different from the parent, these differences give it a greater chance of reproducing and over time its genes become the dominant genes in a given species" or something along those lines. |
Well there is a general human fear of nihilism. I have yet to meet a person that doesn't want a meaning in life. It is something we are all fed since childhood and it is something we all reflect upon for a long while at some stage in our lives. It is the fear of a lack of a universal meaning of life or one that isn't as significant as we originally thought. Many people don't want to think that their solitary purpose in life is to eat, sleep and reproduce at some stage. Not everything needs a purpose but we like to feel like it does. Its something we've been taught through generations and now we have a tough time admitting that life possibly is nihilistic.
| Arcana wrote: |
| That's a big difference and a huge blow to the ego, as I mentioned in my past post in this thread. Man is reluctant to accept any kind of theory that proposes himself as less important than previously believed. The Ptolemic model said Earth was the centre of the universe, thus putting Man as the most important being. Disproved by Copernicus and by Galileo. Galileo died because of it. Darwinsim and the Human genome project are ending up as the same results, although it may be a good testament to our increased tolerance that genetic researchers haven't been burned due to their discoveries. |
To back up Arcana's argument here, Creationism clearly shows that humans are the dominant specie on this planet and as such the one that shares the image of the god/s and the angels. Evolutionism however, takes us off our pedestal and places us level with all the other animals and creatures that we live on this planet with as we all theoretically evolved from the same creature. This is a huge blow to the human ego, which is yet another idiotic trait with which we unfortunately evolved with.
| Njord wrote: |
| I don't believe in this just because I'm a Muslim or because if I don't then it will contradict with my Islamic beliefs, I only stick with this because it is much more convenient for me to think that us humans were born like this and that we are not some kind of evolved creatures. |
Unfortunately, what is convenient for us is not always the truth.
| SARSadmin wrote: |
| However, we are talking about religious establishments here, so please don't take this discussion into a different tangent. |
Actually the topic is about evolution which is quite the opposite to most mainstream religions. There is a religion topic in another thread and I am quite surprised that this thread is turning into a religious discussion. I've no problem with the concept of evolution being explained through religion but if the whole topic turns towards religion alone it should be in a different thread.
| Timbo wrote: |
| We can come from scum, that's coll, but no way life came from nothing. |
Well I won't say that I disagree with you here because I have no explanation of how life originated, just like I have no explanation of how the universe and the planets themselves originated out of nothing but it is a possibility that life did somehow evolve from non-living objects. Movement of objects can create heat and water which in turn should be enough to sustain the first living organisms. How exactly that organism came into being is beyond me, but it is quite possible that life came from a non-living object, even thought my personal beliefs tell me different, but until someone comes up with a rational theory, I'll keep my mind open to almost all possibilities.
| SARSadmin wrote: |
| Evolution is a theory about how life evolved. It has nothing to do with how life originated. |
This is very true but it always leads that question of "What did the very first organism evolve from" and curiosity always seems to get the best of us hehe.
| Timbo wrote: |
| That is good to know, almost everyone I have ever discussed the topic with thinks it explains the origin of life as well. I have never studied evolution extensively and have learned from discussing it rather than reading on it. |
Discussion and reading up on theories essentially come to the same thing, because both are just theories which we ourselves have to make up our mind on. It does help discussing and reading at the same time though, and conversations like this always make me want to learn more about certain issues.
| kuwaizair wrote: |
| so maybe life just happend "like so", it was some spazzidic cosmic hiccup....and in another cosmic hiccup everything may dissipear! |
HAHAHA! That is one good way to look at things. I must say I do love the way you paraphrased that. :lol:
| SARSadmin wrote: |
You also have to understand that the definition of "life" is pretty much man-made. There's a plethora of "life-forms" which are borderline, and show many of the characteristics of "life" but fail in other regards, such as viruses and complex proteins.
In the end, what we describe as life is a series of chemical reactions and atomic bonds, which by themselves are widely observed in other inanimate objects. |
Bah! Curse you and your fancy expressions. We essentially say the same thing yet yours comes out so much more proficient hahaha. :wink:
| FF6Sage wrote: |
| I do however wonder when/how organisms made the leap from just existing to becoming self-aware, assuming evolution can be traced backward that far. What makes those chemical reactions take place? What possible stimulus can make us go from survive & procreate mode to being the way we are now? |
Well I attribute the first life form to heat and cold which are results of movement (which causes planetary collision) which in turn is caused by gravity. I've no idea why and how gravity started. You however jump ahead a few stages and go straight to self-awareness. You've got me completely baffled there my friend. When I figure the answer to how did the first organisms manage to reproduce I'll get back to you on that one.
| SARSadmin wrote: |
| As long as a living thing has more than three neurons connected together, they are capable of being self-aware, in that they will be able to respond to stimuli. To get a full explanation for your question, you'd have to read some books on neuro-psychology or cognitive psychology. |
Well doesn't this cause quite a dilemma though. Psychology itself is yet another thing that is man made and is a VERY arguable topic. Essentially a theory is explaining a theory haha. I am now starting to wonder if that is the way we explain all facts. :? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
iscalio
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Post Count: 8370
1681589 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Saying that all schools teach evolution is generalization which is something I try to shy away from. I know that the schooling in Europe is extensive though and they are generally forced to study just about every topic you can think off. Out of curiosity, where exactly in Europe are you? |
Germany.
| Quote: |
| Actually the topic is about evolution which is quite the opposite to most mainstream religions. |
If anything, then evolution is the "opposite" of creation myths, certainly not of religion. And about your mainstream comment: The catholic church embraces the theory of evolution, and there are one billion catholics in the world. Isn't that "mainstream" enough?
Last edited by iscalio on Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sage
The Invincible Weeds
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Post Count: 15653
Location: Blight's Bay
803820 Potch
0 Soldiers
2 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Black Fang wrote: |
| Alright then. Since I was the one that suggested you create this topic I do feel its about time I made a post in it haha. I was going to make one sooner but Harmonia is keeping me very busy indeed any time I come online. |
I figured as much, but no worries. :)
| Black Fang wrote: |
| As for fact and theory differing slightly....well thats something I would object to. Fact is something which you cannot argue and something that has been proven over right and cannot be argued otherwise |
Any idea makes it to a theory because there's nothing that contradicts it. Theories also change to incorporate new ideas. That way, the theory is constantly as accurate as possible. (Not all theories though, but in general)
| Black Fang wrote: |
| The theoretical sciences, such as Psychology, Philosophy and Sociology never truly have a clean cut answer as they are always based on theories and "what ifs". |
I don't exactly consider those sciences myself. :)
| Black Fang wrote: |
| I personally feel that most students would have a far greater benefit from a subject like philosophy/psychology/sociology than certain peripherals such as art, music, certain sciences or metal classes for example |
I do agree with that however.
| Black Fang wrote: |
| I've no idea why and how gravity started. |
Gravity is the curvature of space due to presence of matter. So when matter started existing, so did gravity. An equivalent question is "Where/How did all the matter in the universe start?" That is currently answered partially by the big bang theory but that's another subject.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sybillious
Ebony Moon Knights
Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Post Count: 5440
Location: Sawgrass Laneding
981865 Potch
59 Soldiers
60 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
black fang wrote:
| Quote: |
Actually the topic is about evolution which is quite the opposite to most mainstream religions. There is a religion topic in another thread and I am quite surprised that this thread is turning into a religious discussion. I've no problem with the concept of evolution being explained through religion but if the whole topic turns towards religion alone it should be in a different thread.
|
religion was introduced into the thread due to the 'creationism' issue; it appears or is, supposedly, the opposing idea pushed by certain religious groups *not all, of course* and is being forced into public school systems because of these groups. *there are other 'great :roll: changes in the usa's public school system, but that's a topic for another thread.*
_________________
prinny...DOOD!
gotta gotta get a...SPICE WEASEL!
to paraphrase my fellow mod, parallax:
I hate my job with the passionately burning intensity of a thousand fiery suns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noot
Faithers of the Defend
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Post Count: 3748
Location: The Holy Kingdom of Harmonia
186551 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just want to wish Charlie Darwin a happy birthday! He turned 196 years old this past Saturday (well, if he were alive that is). I thought this was an appropriate place to comment on this! :D
_________________
~~Harmonian Tenhei Star~~
It's hard to bargle naudle zauss with all these marbles in my mouth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vextor
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Post Count: 12086
Location: Hell
11331071 Potch
23689 Soldiers
160 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Well doesn't this cause quite a dilemma though. Psychology itself is yet another thing that is man made and is a VERY arguable topic. Essentially a theory is explaining a theory haha. I am now starting to wonder if that is the way we explain all facts. |
Neuropsychology and cognitive psychology are very different from other forms of theoretical psychology schools because they are intensely into actual experimentation. It's more like a branch of biology that focuses on the brain itself. It is the type of field where you stick electrodes into monkey's brains and see what happens, etc. It has nothing to do with "armchair psychologists." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Acheron
Stonewall Brigade
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Post Count: 3951
Location: Mar-Uruk
172597 Potch
200 Soldiers
1325 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just my two cents.
1) As a quick reference to one of the first posts pertaining to a scientific theory = fact. No. Maybe this has already been covered. Theory is an idea that explains the way things work. Lets take the theory of a geocentric solar system versus the theory of a heliocentric solar system. Their both theories but with our current technology and mastery over mathematics we know that the theory of a heliocentric solar system is correct making it a LAW of science, which is a proven theory.
2) Why would we just stop evolving? Obviously there are things that could improve about us to make us more fitting to our environment. We've been in essentially the same environment for centuries so why would we stop.
Knowledge is an acquired trait so thats not evolving. Perhaps its arguable that aptitude for knowledge is increasing, but why then are their such great thinkers in the ancient greek times that didn't pass their aptitude down their own bloodlines? There seems to be a few holes to this theory of evolution so I wouldn't say that it's proven. Besides that, the International Science Foundation would have to declare it scientific law for it to be even considered a fact but those decisions can be overturned.
3) What do we gain from the knowledge that we used to be gellatanios goos? Why don't we invest that time and money into discovering more about our present state of being and where we are going in the future? You can believe what you want but don't bash me and my Southern Baptist christian beliefs.
Creationism has just as much evidence supporting it as Natural Selection or Evolution does supporting it. The only difference is that the source of creationism is a power beyond human comprehension, which is so like mankind to instead of learning about something that is beyond humans, they give their own reason to explain it in their terms. Evidence of that fact is that almost every culture known to man created myths to explain what they didn't understand.
Sorry I got a little aggresive at the end there, its just that I feel that christianity is always up to question and science never has any ideas to be desired outside of religion. Hope yall understood what I said, cuz I'm not sure I can explain it later.
CARPE DIEM, SEIZE THE CARP!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vextor
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Post Count: 12086
Location: Hell
11331071 Potch
23689 Soldiers
160 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps it's the word "evolve" that throws people off, as demonstrated by the misteken idea of "evolution" the poster above demonstrated.
The better word is probably "adaptation." In evolutionary theory, it is stated that species "evolve" as they adapt to their surroundings. Physical adaptation doesn't take place during a creature's lifetime, but takes place when only the best adapted offspring survive.
For example, lets say Joe the Jurassic Janitor had 3 children--Harvey the hay-bailin' hunk, Socrates the sophisticated sod, and Travis the truck-driving tenor. Lets say the "environment" is central kentucky, about 60 miles south of Lexington. No matter how hard he may try, Socrates' smarts will not win the hearts of the blue-grass belles because guys who know their topsoil or have nice pickup trucks will have a higher chance to mate in that part of Kentucky. Even though Socrates may have the smarts to change the fate of some third-world countries, he would be useless in Kentucky--he is not fit to live in that environment. Even Travis may have trouble, having such a "sissy" hobby like singing for operas as a tenor. In the end, it is probably Harvey who would have 6 children, and thus harvey's hay-bailin genes will be passed on. Socrates, meanwhile, will commit suicide because he is so damn sophisticated.
That's essentially what evolution boils down to. After thousands and millions of years, the offspring of Harvey will be able to bail hay like no other living thing on this earth, and they'll be able to spit tabacco for extremely long distances.
Evolution takes a similar path in non-human animals--which is why spicies evolve in completely different ways when they become geographically separated.
A lot of times, ill-educated nay-sayers will say "why didn't the monkey's evolve?" Well duh, they did evolve! All the various apes are adapted to their specific environment, and will continue to evolve as long as they are able to mate and mix their genes.
If people think evolution can not be true, they may as well start doubting if their parents are really their own parents. The fact that children often have similar physical traits as their parents pretty much tells you that evolution does happen.
Of course, the advent of tools would really change the way humans will evolve in the future. We really don't need super-human strength anymore because we have machines that can do this. For that reason, there is no reason why humans should evolve physically. However, as long as humans prefer to produce offspring with those who are moreso physically endowed, then the human race will evolve to be physically stronger.
I mean, you will have to be joking if you're gonna say that smarter people have more offspring, because that is not the case at all. Highest birth-rates are seen in the poorest places. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Horned Loa
Guardians of the Merchant
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Post Count: 2214
Location: Ceresfjellet
96000 Potch
1000 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| iscalio wrote: |
| If anything, then evolution is the "opposite" of creation myths, certainly not of religion. And about your mainstream comment: The catholic church embraces the theory of evolution, and there are one billion catholics in the world. Isn't that "mainstream" enough? |
Good point! Mind you this is only ONE mainstream religion, but I get what you mean. Mind you, I am still against generalization and I understand that there are religious people that do believe in the theory of evolution but I also understand that out of those billion or so Catholics you say, a large chunk wouldn't believe in the theory of evolution because they would see it contradicting with the bible, which many people take literally as a guide to life. I guess you are right and this issue CAN go both ways though, depending on the people involved.
| FF6Sage wrote: |
| Any idea makes it to a theory because there's nothing that contradicts it. Theories also change to incorporate new ideas. That way, the theory is constantly as accurate as possible. (Not all theories though, but in general) |
Yes I realize that but this does not mean that facts do not exist. My previous example of 1+1=2 can easily describe this. If you have one apple and gain another one there is no way you can have any more or less then two apples unless something happens to one of them or another one or more are added. Certain things are proven facts but most are as you say theories. Knowing which is which however, is very difficult indeed.
| FF6Sage wrote: |
| I don't exactly consider those sciences myself. :) |
You'd think so. I'm with you on that one but psychology for example is the science of how the human mind works. I personally prefer psychology at its root where human actions were taken into consideration and proof was provided for why a person would do what they do. Modern psychology however seems to set a theory first and goes about proving that theory in many different ways. With the infinite amount of tests a person can make up they are bound to "prove" the theory using modern methods. I just don't agree with this and feel that I myself would rather study the ancient intellectual minds that wanted to figure out why we do what we do rather than the modern "psychologists".
| FF6Sage wrote: |
| Gravity is the curvature of space due to presence of matter. So when matter started existing, so did gravity. An equivalent question is "Where/How did all the matter in the universe start?" That is currently answered partially by the big bang theory but that's another subject. |
Haha, my bad. I do understand this and I know that even the smallest objects are attracted to each other and that the larger the object the higher gravity pull it has. What I meant to say is, why does gravity exist? What was its original purpose and who came up with the principle of gravity? The questions that cannot be answered just like the famous "where did the universe come from" phenomena.
| SARSadmin wrote: |
| Neuropsychology and cognitive psychology are very different from other forms of theoretical psychology schools because they are intensely into actual experimentation. It's more like a branch of biology that focuses on the brain itself. It is the type of field where you stick electrodes into monkey's brains and see what happens, etc. It has nothing to do with "armchair psychologists." |
Point well taken. I too tend to have more faith in biology than I do in psychology but in saying that I also prove that I do not fully trust psychology and neuropsychology either as there are chances that they might be wrong too, but if I keep doing this we'll just keep going in circles so I'm going to drop it here as I know it won't end haha. :mrgreen:
| Acheron88 wrote: |
| Lets take the theory of a geocentric solar system versus the theory of a heliocentric solar system. Their both theories but with our current technology and mastery over mathematics we know that the theory of a heliocentric solar system is correct making it a LAW of science, which is a proven theory. |
Yes but once again this all lingers on the fact that our technology, mastery of mathematics and science have no flaws, which we all know they do. One mistake in any one of these fields can cause the theory to alter in numerous ways which can prove something completely different as a valid theory.
| Acheron88 wrote: |
| Knowledge is an acquired trait so thats not evolving. Perhaps its arguable that aptitude for knowledge is increasing, but why then are their such great thinkers in the ancient greek times that didn't pass their aptitude down their own bloodlines? There seems to be a few holes to this theory of evolution so I wouldn't say that it's proven. Besides that, the International Science Foundation would have to declare it scientific law for it to be even considered a fact but those decisions can be overturned. |
Well I agree that knowledge is something we gain throughout experience but the answer to the ancient Greek thinkers part of your post is that you must keep in mind that in that time and place most if not all citizens had slaves to do their everyday work. Much of the aristocracy and nobility had an entire staff of slaves that would proved a large enough income to take care of their family and estate as well as the slaves themselves. They also had slaves to cook, clean and gather for them so it left a lot of philosophical minds plenty of free time with which they could theorize. This is the reason why many theories and ideas come from Greece around that period of time.
| SARSadmin wrote: |
Perhaps it's the word "evolve" that throws people off, as demonstrated by the misteken idea of "evolution" the poster above demonstrated.
The better word is probably "adaptation." In evolutionary theory, it is stated that species "evolve" as they adapt to their surroundings. Physical adaptation doesn't take place during a creature's lifetime, but takes place when only the best adapted offspring survive. |
Yes, I would have to agree with this but I do not believe that the word itself is at fault but rather what humanity has changed it to nowadays. With shows such as pokemon teaching kids that evolution is something that happens in an instant its no surprise people mess up when it comes to this theory. I too feel thought, that at the moment that the word Adaptation should be used for this theory.
| SARSadmin wrote: |
| Evolution takes a similar path in non-human animals--which is why spicies evolve in completely different ways when they become geographically separated. |
A great example to back up this point is white lions and tigers which have adopted to their surroundings. They required better camouflage to help them in their hunt for food so they eventually got whiter and whiter, whilst their more common counterparts in Asia and Africa meld in closer with their natural habitat.
| SARSadmin wrote: |
| Of course, the advent of tools would really change the way humans will evolve in the future. We really don't need super-human strength anymore because we have machines that can do this. For that reason, there is no reason why humans should evolve physically. However, as long as humans prefer to produce offspring with those who are moreso physically endowed, then the human race will evolve to be physically stronger. |
I've heard statistical assumptions that in the years to come humans will adapt to the use of technology and it is theorized that babies shall be born with extra muscles in the thumbs to make us more efficient with the use of technology. I don't see any survival strategies this can have but it would help with the increased use of cell phones, PS2 game pads and TV remote controls which are being used more and more as we advance technologically. Not quite sure what to make of this theory though, but thought you guys might be interested in hearing it anyways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sage
The Invincible Weeds
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Post Count: 15653
Location: Blight's Bay
803820 Potch
0 Soldiers
2 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Black Fang wrote: |
| I too feel thought, that at the moment that the word Adaptation should be used for this theory. |
They tried to do that in an American school. The word evolution was swapped with adaptation in the curriculum. The reasoning was that "evolution" was a controversial buzzword and some students may not read the texts because of it. They weren't against the principle, they were just trying to get past the conroversy. Critics said that when these students get out in the real world, they will be at a disadvantage. That's BS to me. If you suddenly tell me Newton's three laws of motion are called the three theories on blue popcorn, I still know what they mean. I just have to call them something different from now on. Somehow, it got blown way out of proportion and the school had to get different textbooks and reverse their decision.
| SARSadmin wrote: |
| Evolution takes a similar path in non-human animals--which is why spicies evolve in completely different ways when they become geographically separated. |
An example that comes to my mind is Madagascar. There are several "primitive" primates on the island due to its breaking off from Africa. The animls changed a lot on the mainland, while those on Madagascar didn't change all that much.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Child of The Sea God
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Post Count: 259
Location: C-Town
188289 Potch
2671 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
i had to watch a movie on darwin's evolution theory in school last week -_-
_________________
Life is like a play, you're given the role that fate hands to you.
-Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shrew
The All-Star Rock n' Breakdance Electronic Band from Shenzhen
Joined: 18 May 2004
Post Count: 2328
Location: Chefurbo Kaimuttal
237023 Potch
110 Soldiers
100 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As a quick reference to one of the first posts pertaining to a scientific theory = fact. No. Maybe this has already been covered. Theory is an idea that explains the way things work. Lets take the theory of a geocentric solar system versus the theory of a heliocentric solar system. Their both theories but with our current technology and mastery over mathematics we know that the theory of a heliocentric solar system is correct making it a LAW of science, which is a proven theory. |
No, not really. A theory is science is something that explains everything under a certain topic, but is too large to be tested as a whole. You cannot test the entire Atomic theory all at once, and you can't test all of evolution at once. So what you do is test aspects of that theory. This aspects are what we call Scientific laws: things small enough to experiment and prove. These small parts then act to hold up and verify the large untestable theory.
Think of it as a table being held up by legs. The table is the theory itself, which is the increcibly useful part. The legs are the laws which alone serve little practical use, but when put together are responsible for the table being able to stand. But if these legs are weak then testing them may cause them to collapse, just as experiments sometimes disprove certain laws. However one law failing is not enough to collapse the whole theory, although it may require some revision and a new law to replace the old. Knock down enough legs though and that table is done for.
So the geocentric theory is a theory that no longer has any laws holding it up, while the heliocentric theory has plenty of data and laws supporting it. The same follows with creationism and evolution.
Creationism states that "God created the universe", the laws supporting it would be something like "God exists", "God made the moon", "God made animals", "God made light", "God made man". Unfortunately all of these laws are untestable and therefore unprovable. And if you take the book of Genesis literally, in that the world was made in 7 days, and that from Adam 6000 some years have passed according to ages of people in the bible you have another law. But this law has been disproven by scientific data showing the Earth is several billion years old. So the creationism theory is not a strong theory in the scientific sense because nothing about it can be tested.
Evolution is built upon testable laws and therefore much stronger. You can see evolution in the adaptation of bacteria, in Darwin's finches, in the success of animals in certain environments, how there are different species of animals, though they may appear similar, genetics, vestigial organs, etc. So that's why evolution has much more support in the scientific community.
Then there's intelligent design, which claims that life is too complex to have just evolved at random. Something must have guided it (be it God or aliens). This aims to contradict the idea that evolution is random and has no real direction other than just adapting to its environment. But there really aren't any laws supporting it, which is why the scientific community so hates it.
_________________
Fear our Vagueness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuwaizair
blauuurgggh!
Joined: 22 May 2004
Post Count: 3427
Location: Plaats
174392 Potch
0 Soldiers
1291 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Black Fang wrote: |
I've heard statistical assumptions that in the years to come humans will adapt to the use of technology and it is theorized that babies shall be born with extra muscles in the thumbs to make us more efficient with the use of technology. I don't see any survival strategies this can have but it would help with the increased use of cell phones, PS2 game pads and TV remote controls which are being used more and more as we advance technologically. Not quite sure what to make of this theory though, but thought you guys might be interested in hearing it anyways. |
there is one strip from an over the hedge comic with this...its pretty funny, the kids are playing vidio games, theire eyes have become large and bulging, there butts large and thumbs hudge.
its how suburbanites will evolve
-------
anway this convo is turning again.
so we have some complaning on more attcks on the Catholics and or Christains? well I don't see anyone droping any non (whats that word Aberhamic?) creation stories yet...like Aztec or Austrlian Aborginie...or ones from achient Egypt. The evolution is here to explane things like "ape" to man, or lungfish to frog. its harder to make the leap from slime to man...because it dosen't go that way, the slime turned into "everything".
its fun though.....finding new fossils and claiming "this is the ancestor of XYZ", heck i based my "fursona" on it. (i picked a miacis, allgeged ancestor of all land carnivoria)
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noot
Faithers of the Defend
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Post Count: 3748
Location: The Holy Kingdom of Harmonia
186551 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They just found a human skull that was dated back 90,000 years, when the previous oldest record was 40,000 years. Science keeps learning more and more about where we came from, and it becomes harder and harder to doubt that evolution is taking place.
_________________
~~Harmonian Tenhei Star~~
It's hard to bargle naudle zauss with all these marbles in my mouth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sybillious
Ebony Moon Knights
Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Post Count: 5440
Location: Sawgrass Laneding
981865 Potch
59 Soldiers
60 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
child of the sea god wrote:
| Quote: |
i had to watch a movie on darwin's evolution theory in school last week -_-
|
how exactly does this add to the conversation? i highly recommend you read the stickied topic on nonsense posts before you repeat this action.
by itself, it's basically spam; if you had followed up with info about the movie or your take/opinion on evolution, it would have been fine-you only posted the above, which is not.
read the rules and follow them next time; consider this an official warning.
_________________
prinny...DOOD!
gotta gotta get a...SPICE WEASEL!
to paraphrase my fellow mod, parallax:
I hate my job with the passionately burning intensity of a thousand fiery suns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
