Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by darksidZz, Feb 10, 2007.
Sounds like 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yeah, could be!
And see, that's just it ....we don't know, we can only make wild conjectures and assumptions with little or no factual evidence.
I guess we just have to find that monolith, then we can re-write our school books.
Oh, don't worry, Nick, they are searching for it or something similar. Surely you knew that, didn't you? They thought maybe Easter Island was it, but it didn't pan out .......yet!
In that case hold the printing press, lets leave our books as they are.
No, that's a correct characterization, although conditions may have been such that synergies like this were likely.
Spear-wielding chimps snack on skewered bushbabies
Likely? Is that ....ahhh, another word for "scientific proof"?
And interestingly, don't ya' think that those chimps saw some natives using spears, and said to themselves, "Hey, lookee that funnylookin' ape! Why don't we use spears like that?" And low n' behold, the chimps worked day n' night for weeks coming up with just the right combination of stick to match the native's spear.
There is an unseen force that guides evolution, it's called the environment or ecosystem in which that life form lives. The scientific proof for the non-directed nature of evolution involves how structures are modified for different purposes, there is no planning ahead, otherwise the structures would have formed differently. You cannot reasonably assume a planned design for a whale would include vestigal pelvic bones.
I suppose it's possible that apes used spears in imitation of man, but I think that is unlikely, since the only interaction between them would be as prey.
We do know.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Evolution is a fact.
You simply refuse to accept the facts.
Your claim amounts to :
If we don't know EVERYTHING, we know NOTHING.
Which is completely untrue.
That's like saying -
" we don't know everything about gravity, therefore we can't even be sure gravity is real".
" we don't know everything about the sun, therefore we can't even be sure the sun is real".
" we don't know everything about electricity, therefore we can't even be sure electricity is real".
The only reasons you claim evolution is not true is because it disagrees with your faith.
Yet the Pope supports evolution, so does the Archbishop of Canterbury, so do the majority of Christians.
your comments show you don't know anything about evolution.
Because you belief is equivalent to believing the world is flat.
It is completely wrong.
How can a lifeform form itself depending on the environment?
Yeah, after-the-fact, and by seeing only what they want to see, or setting out to "prove" something in the first place. Sorta' like second-guessing, or armchair quarterbacking, huh?
Interesting, Spider ...does that mean you know what the "plan" was in the first place? ...and that it didn't include the vestigal pelvic bones?
There are lots of things built that have seemingly unusable parts or spaces. Just because you don't know what the use is, is no sign that the designer doesn't know.
I love that word "unlikely" ...I'm gonna' start using it to prove all kinds of things in this fucked up world! Thanks, Spider.
And as to the chimps ...just because they were the prey of spear-carrying humans is no sign that they didn't look to see what kind of strange weapons they were carrying .......then building some of their own.
You call that "unseen force" whatever you want, but allow others the same freedom to call it what they want to call it. Why is that so difficult for some of y'all?
Scientists in the 50's and 60's told us that Thalidomide was the wonder drug of the era, and that it was perfectly safe. Thousands of women took the drug on the advice of their doctors ....only to find out that their children were born with horrid deformations.
So ....should we always believe scientists? Are scientists always right? How long should we wait before we're sure of what they tell us?
Or should we jump on the bandwagon and begin cheering? ...like we did with the Thalidomide drug???????
Evoultion does not work as a theory. That is obvious. It has made zero progress in function, procedure and process. It does not deserve it's status as Theory. The basis fore the orginal theory have long since proven wrong and currently servers as a man made comfort zone from which to avoid the topics such as God and morality.
These failures are on record. The inability of the Scientific community to disgard the theory is very disturbing. The resulting teaching of it in schools as though it is a fact is even more perplexing.
It has all the elements of a well coordinated hoax on massive proportions. This is not surprising since uniformitarianism has been know to hoax the world. Uniformitarian culture dictates the exclusion of counter theories and the ridicule of creationist or catastrphist that have long contributed to the furthering of science.
Evolution has thus stalled scientific progress. Make room for theories that work.
In fact biology has made great progress because of the theory of evolution.
Agriculturally the experiments that attempted to prove evolution became useful in modifying staple crops to be more resistance in insects and more resiliant.
Mostly we've learned what we can't do. We've studied the human genome and the genome of several other species. It has led to a great deal of information on genetics...but what would one expect from so many failures.
But Progress in evolution...In fact there is no progress in evolution. In related fields? Sure...who can deny?
Saquist, please specify why Evolution theory fails.
Anti-bacterial and anti-viral medications are heavily dependant on the understanding of heredity and mutation that Evolution Theory provides us. Same with nearly the entire field of biotechnology, plant and animal cloning, the very existance of corn, silk, and the variety of rice that we enjoy; all are the result of humans utilizing the ability of nature to evolve.
So in what areas, exactly has science been stalled by it?
just saw your second post.
huh? what are you hoping for in "Progress in Evolution"? Are you hoping for similar progress in Newtownian Physics?
Depending on the suitability of that life form in that environment (actually the genes in the life form in the environment), it will reproduce, or not. It's life will be a success or not. Suitable forms (actually it's genes) prosper and increase their number, non-suitable forms diminish. Combined with variations between individuals and the inheritability of those variations, the life form as a whole (gene pool) appears to undergo adaptation to the environment.
Evolution is true, please stop this nonsense. It is mathematically true and provable. It is the latent promise of every diallelic ratio, the realization of each Punnett's square. Evolution - the change in allelic frequencies - happens. Period. Innumerable allelotypes are associated with traits; phenotypic change is latently possible and occurs. Again, period.
Perhaps it is obvious to you because you have a superior intellect to all the hundreds of thousands of anatomists, zoologists, botanists, microbiologists, palaeontologists, geneticists, ethologists, anthropologists, and the like who do believe it to be a working theory.
If you intend to challenge such a group you will have to offer more than a trite (and frankly foolish) 'that is obvious'.
The function of a theory is to explain things. Evolutionary theory, in its current form, certainly explains much more than Darwin's initial offering did. As a single example the understanding of the mechanisms of herditary as discerned by Mendel added subtantially to Darwin's original vision.
I am not at all clear how theories have a procdure, or a process, or how these two things differ. Perhaps if you explain this I should be able to tell you whether I agree or disagree.
Since a theory is a hypothesis which helps explain many observations and does so in a repeatable fashion, especially where no alternative explanation offers comparable volumes or quality of evidence, then the Theory of Evolution has most definitely qualified as a theory.
Perhaps you would care to cite specific research, or textbooks, that include this proof of 'wrongness'. If you cannot do so, please be so good as to retract such palpable nonsense.
There is nothing in the theory which in anyway permits avoidance of morality, nor that discourages consideration of God, or gods. Only a narrow minded, short sighted, brain dead ignoramus might think so. I am sure you are not one, so I must have misunderstood you.
As before, where? Be specific.
Now you are just talking crap. Evidence, my laddie. Evidence.
So what is your alternative?
Separate names with a comma.