I would like to say I appreciate how your minds works, Ahnimus.
Thank you very much Angelica, I think the same way about you.
I was scowering the internet the past few hours to find some theory, any theory on how a single-celled organism could have evolved. Was it a complex mixture of chemicals and/or gases? What is the origin of the single-celled organism. Evolution does a great job of explaining the origins of multi-celled organisms from single-celled organisms, but what explains single-celled organisms?
That may be the ID theorists new niche, but the problem is it's still a metaphysical theory and science is the study of the observable.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Exactly my point. IF you believe in evolution. (which I do by the way). If you believe in creation, then our existence may be interpreted as evidence of our creation. All I'm trying to do is get Ahnimus to use logical arguments, not crazy restrospective probability arguments that make no sense and circular "we're here because we evolved therefore our existence is evidence of evolution" arguments.
I appreciate it, but I think you missed the point of my arguement.
I was arguing that probability doesn't mean "God exists"
Certainly it doesn't mean "Evolution is true"
It means basically squat.
Although, we know the mechanics of flipping a coin, you could write a computer simulation that properly and accurately calculates the outcome of a coin toss based on the objective influences. The same is true for Evolution, check out the new Sim game called "Spores" which is due out around March '07. It's an evolution simulator, it starts off with single-celled organisms, with each generation the player makes genetic mutations to their cell and over time they become evolved beings, eventually they become sentient as well. It's really a multi-tiered game, looks really interesting. Perhaps it's not an exact scientific representation of Evolution theory, but it does represent the working mechanics of Evolution. If we knew exactly how evolution works, we might realize that our existance was inevitable.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Thank you very much Angelica, I think the same way about you.
I was scowering the internet the past few hours to find some theory, any theory on how a single-celled organism could have evolved. Was it a complex mixture of chemicals and/or gases? What is the origin of the single-celled organism. Evolution does a great job of explaining the origins of multi-celled organisms from single-celled organisms, but what explains single-celled organisms?
That may be the ID theorists new niche, but the problem is it's still a metaphysical theory and science is the study of the observable.
You are welcome Ahnimus. And thank you to you!
Darn it all! Where's baraka when we need her! She's pretty good at thinking outside the box, within the parameters of what science strictly knows and does not.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ahhh, but 100%, undeniable, irrefutable, scientifically proven fact is pretty much BEYOND debate, so...
with that, i'm staying out of this one.
(Nice to se ya Scub).
Well if you are debating the facts, then no they are beyond debate. Evolution is a theory tying those facts together, so it is debatable. When creationists attack Evolution they are really attacking the underlying facts that Evolution is based on.
Such as, Humans evolved from ape-like creatures. Well we have fossil records linking us to ape-like creatures, and our genome makes the same correlations. So both our skeletal structure and our genomics factually point to our acenstory as ape-like creatures. Evolution explains how that happened, not that it did happen.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Such as, Humans evolved from ape-like creatures. Well we have fossil records linking us to ape-like creatures, and our genome makes the same correlations. So both our skeletal structure and our genomics factually point to our acenstory as ape-like creatures. Evolution explains how that happened, not that it did happen.
correlation and similarity do not indicate causality. I can look back and say that x and y are similar and I can hypothesize that one came from another or had similar origins, what I can't do is prove that they did. I can make an educated guess based on the fact that x and y are similar but I can't make an irrefutable claim that one led to another. Now if I do a prospective study and watch X devlop characteristics of Y then I can say that one led to the other.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
correlation and similarity do not indicate causality. I can look back and say that x and y are similar and I can hypothesize that one came from another or had similar origins, what I can't do is prove that they did. I can make an educated guess based on the fact that x and y are similar but I can't make an irrefutable claim that one led to another. Now if I do a prospective study and watch X devlop characteristics of Y then I can say that one led to the other.
That's what a hypothesis is, it's a prediction, it's not a scientific hypothesis if it can't be tested.
The theory of Evolution has spawned thousands of hypothesis that check out. Epidemiology is mostly based on hypothesis derived from evolution theory.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Here is an experiment that can be done on different levels. Kind of a hypothesis, it's already been done, so I know the outcome.
Take two plants of similar lineage and splice them together. Cut the top off both plants and switch them around. If you have the appropriate equipment, take samples of the plants' DNA first. After a generation, make notes of the observational differences in the F1 plant from both of it's parents. Now, assuming you have the proper equipment, extract the DNA from the F1 plant and compare it to the parent plants. If the F1 plant is not sterile it will produce F2 seeds, which you can grow and extract the DNA from it. You will likely notice phenotypic correlations between the F2 plant and the parents not seen in the F1 plant.
Now give the process a name, I call it Evolution.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Being raised Catholic, I can say yes, he/she/it is fucking with our heads!
:D
If you think that's bad, check these guys out:
Hominid Species
The species here are listed roughly in order of appearance in the fossil record (note that this ordering is not meant to represent an evolutionary sequence), except that the robust australopithecines are kept together. Each name consists of a genus name (e.g. Australopithecus, Homo) which is always capitalized, and a specific name (e.g. africanus, erectus) which is always in lower case. Within the text, genus names are often omitted for brevity. Each species has a type specimen which was used to define it.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
This species was named in July 2002 from fossils discovered in Chad in Central Africa (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002). It is the oldest known hominid or near-hominid species, dated at between 6 and 7 million years old. This species is known from a nearly complete cranium nicknamed Toumai, and a number of fragmentary lower jaws and teeth. The skull has a very small brain size of approximately 350 cc. It is not known whether it was bipedal. S. tchadensis has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids. This mixture, along with the fact that it comes from around the time when the hominids are thought to have diverged from chimpanzees, suggests it is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.
Orrorin tugenensis
This species was named in July 2001 from fossils discovered in western Kenya (Senut et al. 2001). The fossils include fragmentary arm and thigh bones, lower jaws, and teeth and were discovered in deposits that are about 6 million years old. The limb bones are about 1.5 times larger than those of Lucy, and suggest that it was about the size of a female chimpanzee. Its finders have claimed that Orrorin was a human ancestor adapted to both bipedality and tree climbing, and that the australopithecines are an extinct offshoot. Given the fragmentary nature of the remains, other scientists have been skeptical of these claims so far (Aiello and Collard 2001). A later paper (Galik et al. 2004) has found further evidence of bipedality in the fossil femur.
Ardipithecus ramidus
This species was named in September 1994 (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). It was originally dated at 4.4 million years, but has since been discovered to far back as 5.8 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause revision of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White and his colleagues have since discovered a ramidus skeleton which is about 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)
More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned first to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001), and then later as a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with kadabba is not as firm as the other fossils.
Australopithecus anamensis
This species was named in August 1995 (Leakey et al. 1995). The material consists of 9 fossils, mostly found in 1994, from Kanapoi in Kenya, and 12 fossils, mostly teeth found in 1988, from Allia Bay in Kenya (Leakey et al. 1995). Anamensis existed between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago, and has a mixture of primitive features in the skull, and advanced features in the body. The teeth and jaws are very similar to those of older fossil apes. A partial tibia (the larger of the two lower leg bones) is strong evidence of bipedality, and a lower humerus (the upper arm bone) is extremely humanlike. Note that although the skull and skeletal bones are thought to be from the same species, this is not confirmed.
Australopithecus afarensis
A. afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. Afarensis had an apelike face with a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, and no chin. They had protruding jaws with large back teeth. Cranial capacity varied from about 375 to 550 cc. The skull is similar to that of a chimpanzee, except for the more humanlike teeth. The canine teeth are much smaller than those of modern apes, but larger and more pointed than those of humans, and shape of the jaw is between the rectangular shape of apes and the parabolic shape of humans. However their pelvis and leg bones far more closely resemble those of modern man, and leave no doubt that they were bipedal (although adapted to walking rather than running (Leakey 1994)). Their bones show that they were physically very strong. Females were substantially smaller than males, a condition known as sexual dimorphism. Height varied between about 107 cm (3'6") and 152 cm (5'0"). The finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, but the hands are similar to humans in most other details (Johanson and Edey 1981). Most scientists consider this evidence that afarensis was still partially adapted to climbing in trees, others consider it evolutionary baggage.
Kenyanthropus platyops
This species was named in 2001 from a partial skull found in Kenya with an unusual mixture of features (Leakey et al. 2001). It is aged about 3.5 million years old. The size of the skull is similar to A. afarensis and A. africanus, and has a large, flat face and small teeth.
Australopithecus africanus
A. africanus existed between 3 and 2 million years ago. It is similar to afarensis, and was also bipedal, but body size was slightly greater. Brain size may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 420 and 500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar body size), but still not advanced in the areas necessary for speech. The back teeth were a little bigger than in afarensis. Although the teeth and jaws of africanus are much larger than those of humans, they are far more similar to human teeth than to those of apes (Johanson and Edey 1981). The shape of the jaw is now fully parabolic, like that of humans, and the size of the canine teeth is further reduced compared to afarensis.
Australopithecus garhi
This species was named in April 1999 (Asfaw et al. 1999). It is known from a partial skull. The skull differs from previous australopithecine species in the combination of its features, notably the extremely large size of its teeth, especially the rear ones, and a primitive skull morphology. Some nearby skeletal remains may belong to the same species. They show a humanlike ratio of the humerus and femur, but an apelike ratio of the lower and upper arm. (Groves 1999; Culotta 1999)
Australopithecus afarensis and africanus, and the other species above, are known as gracile australopithecines, because of their relatively lighter build, especially in the skull and teeth. (Gracile means "slender", and in paleoanthropology is used as an antonym to "robust".) Despite this, they were still more robust than modern humans.
Australopithecus aethiopicus
A. aethiopicus existed between 2.6 and 2.3 million years ago. This species is known from one major specimen, the Black Skull discovered by Alan Walker, and a few other minor specimens which may belong to the same species. It may be an ancestor of robustus and boisei, but it has a baffling mixture of primitive and advanced traits. The brain size is very small, at 410 cc, and parts of the skull, particularly the hind portions, are very primitive, most resembling afarensis. Other characteristics, like the massiveness of the face, jaws and single tooth found, and the largest sagittal crest in any known hominid, are more reminiscent of A. boisei (Leakey and Lewin 1992). (A sagittal crest is a bony ridge on top of the skull to which chewing muscles attach.)
Australopithecus robustus
A. robustus had a body similar to that of africanus, but a larger and more robust skull and teeth. It existed between 2 and 1.5 million years ago. The massive face is flat or dished, with no forehead and large brow ridges. It has relatively small front teeth, but massive grinding teeth in a large lower jaw. Most specimens have sagittal crests. Its diet would have been mostly coarse, tough food that needed a lot of chewing. The average brain size is about 530 cc. Bones excavated with robustus skeletons indicate that they may have been used as digging tools.
Australopithecus boisei (was Zinjanthropus boisei)
A. boisei existed between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago. It was similar to robustus, but the face and cheek teeth were even more massive, some molars being up to 2 cm across. The brain size is very similar to robustus, about 530 cc. A few experts consider boisei and robustus to be variants of the same species.
Australopithecus aethiopicus, robustus and boisei are known as robust australopithecines, because their skulls in particular are more heavily built. They have never been serious candidates for being direct human ancestors. Many authorities now classify them in the genus Paranthropus.
Homo habilis
H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and H. erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been smaller.
Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils such as ER 1470.
Homo georgicus
This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 680 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002)
Homo erectus
H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). The skeleton is more robust than those of modern humans, implying greater strength. Body proportions vary; the Turkana Boy is tall and slender (though still extraordinarily strong), like modern humans from the same area, while the few limb bones found of Peking Man indicate a shorter, sturdier build. Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis 1989). Homo habilis and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and has been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There is evidence that erectus probably used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis.
All different species of hominid put here to test your faith
There are more but they wouldn't fit in one message.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Here is an experiment that can be done on different levels. Kind of a hypothesis, it's already been done, so I know the outcome.
Take two plants of similar lineage and splice them together. Cut the top off both plants and switch them around. If you have the appropriate equipment, take samples of the plants' DNA first. After a generation, make notes of the observational differences in the F1 plant from both of it's parents. Now, assuming you have the proper equipment, extract the DNA from the F1 plant and compare it to the parent plants. If the F1 plant is not sterile it will produce F2 seeds, which you can grow and extract the DNA from it. You will likely notice phenotypic correlations between the F2 plant and the parents not seen in the F1 plant.
Now give the process a name, I call it Evolution.
Huh? I'm a biologist, and that confused the hell out of me. How is a layperson supposed to follow it?
So you're saying that if the F2 plants exhibit some of the same phenotypic characteristics as the original plants this is evidence of evolution? How? Anyway, you don't measure phenotype by looking at DNA. You're not making sense. I hate to say it, but I suspect that you really are just trying to wow everyone with your brilliance.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Huh? I'm a biologist, and that confused the hell out of me. How is a layperson supposed to follow it?
So you're saying that if the F2 plants exhibit some of the same phenotypic characteristics as the original plants this is evidence of evolution? How? Anyway, you don't measure phenotype by looking at DNA. You're not making sense. I hate to say it, but I suspect that you really are just trying to wow everyone with your brilliance.
The F2 plant sharing the same phenotypic traits as the parents but not the F1 plant shows the complexity of evolution.
I know you don't messure phenotype by DNA, if you are looking for traits that expressed in one generation but not the next, it's best to look at the phenotype, looking at the DNA is another type of correlation. The experiment is designed to be observational, it's not as simple as just reading the outline of the experiment and assuming total knowledge.
How this doesn't make sense to you? I don't know.
I guess you'd have to be an evolutionary biologist?
I have a biologist friend as well and she has no problem understanding me. We converse all the time about this shit.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It certainly seems that way, I'm amazed faith is possible and so consistant with the knowledge we have now. Though many of these fossils were discovered in the last 5 to 10 years.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i've debated this subject on this board many times and there is no point saying the same thing again. i'll just ask why do you care if half of americans don't believe in macro evolution? does it keep you awake at night??!!
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
okay i can't resist LOL. i think the mistake the the first poster made is saying in effect given enough time evolution is bound to happen. i personally think its a cop-out saying the impossible becomes possible given enough time. where the creationism camp is really weak is in the area of the age of the universe particulary the amount of light years between stars and fitting the dinosaurs in a 6000 year window. my great struggle with evolution is that macro evolution has not being observed (and probably never will) and so you will really must accept it has happened which isn't really very scientific.
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
I think the probability of it is pretty high myself. Consider that there are literally trillions of trillions of planets out there, then the odds that at least one (probably millions) planet developed intelligent life is huge, even if they are one in 100 billion, there is huge potential for intelligent life on lots of planets in the universe.
My point is, that in our eyes, we see ourselves as very unique, so consider ourselves to be divinely created, when in reality, we are probably just a grain of sand on a beach.
Anyway, that sounds really cheezy, but it makes sense to me.
how I see things..not cheezy at all........and I'll even go as far as saying there are an infinite number of planets...and hence..there are an infinite number of people exactly like you. And yes...you are not "Special".
how I see things..not cheezy at all........and I'll even go as far as saying there are an infinite number of planets...and hence..there are an infinite number of people exactly like you. And yes...you are not "Special".
I wouldn't say exactly like us. Evolution and life are too variable to produce species just like us every time. I doubt our universe is like Star Trek where all the intelligent species look just like us, except with different things on their foreheads, lol.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
i've debated this subject on this board many times and there is no point saying the same thing again. i'll just ask why do you care if half of americans don't believe in macro evolution? does it keep you awake at night??!!
Because Evolution denial stunts our growth as a species. Scientists are taking the theory of Evolution and developing cures and better understandings of people. Then these punk ID freaks come a long and try to put a wedge in all that great work. Since then a lot of science time has been spent arguing with these fanatics instead of curing cancer or AIDS.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Because Evolution denial stunts our growth as a species. Scientists are taking the theory of Evolution and developing cures and better understandings of people. Then these punk ID freaks come a long and try to put a wedge in all that great work. Since then a lot of science time has been spent arguing with these fanatics instead of curing cancer or AIDS.
Exactly, the fact that there are people out there trying to censore the truth is terrifying, regardless of what that truth is used for.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Exactly, the fact that there are people out there trying to censore the truth is terrifying, regardless of what that truth is used for.
I don't think I'd want to be a biologist. Biology is constantly under attack by belief systems.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Huh? I've read a lot about things too, watching a lecture is just one example. What seperates autodidactic studies from formal education? In university you have lectures and books, well I have both of them too.
the fact that in formal education you do 4 years of study. for a phd it's more like 10. 10 years of in depth looks at the stuff. on top of that you do hands-on research. you read extensively, dozens and dozens of books, theories, articles. you have personal face to face interaction with experts on the subjects at issue. you are regularly tested on your level and depth of understanding. it gives a very nuanced and balanced perspective on the field.
you cannot get that just reading a bunch of books alone in your room and then watching a movie.
the fact that in formal education you do 4 years of study. for a phd it's more like 10. 10 years of in depth looks at the stuff. on top of that you do hands-on research. you read extensively, dozens and dozens of books, theories, articles. you have personal face to face interaction with experts on the subjects at issue. you are regularly tested on your level and depth of understanding. it gives a very nuanced and balanced perspective on the field.
you cannot get that just reading a bunch of books alone in your room and then watching a movie.
Why not? This is how I learn.
This seems to be a really common belief that "nothing can be learned outside of school". But if you actually step out into the real world, you find out that's not entirely true. Some people like myself find autodidactic studies far superior than organized classrooms. Four years is way too long to learn this shit, I'll be done three fields of study at least in that time.
It's like that year you spend in highschool learning to write proper sentances, perform algebra and jump rope. I learned all that in 2 weeks once I had the opportunity outside of school. The school system is good for some people, but not for me. I plan to read this book I'm reading twice, while looking up all the theories and terms online, watch a few lectures, then I move on. I'm not looking for a career and that's sufficient study for me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Thank you very much Angelica, I think the same way about you.
I was scowering the internet the past few hours to find some theory, any theory on how a single-celled organism could have evolved. Was it a complex mixture of chemicals and/or gases? What is the origin of the single-celled organism. Evolution does a great job of explaining the origins of multi-celled organisms from single-celled organisms, but what explains single-celled organisms?
That may be the ID theorists new niche, but the problem is it's still a metaphysical theory and science is the study of the observable.
I appreciate it, but I think you missed the point of my arguement.
I was arguing that probability doesn't mean "God exists"
Certainly it doesn't mean "Evolution is true"
It means basically squat.
Although, we know the mechanics of flipping a coin, you could write a computer simulation that properly and accurately calculates the outcome of a coin toss based on the objective influences. The same is true for Evolution, check out the new Sim game called "Spores" which is due out around March '07. It's an evolution simulator, it starts off with single-celled organisms, with each generation the player makes genetic mutations to their cell and over time they become evolved beings, eventually they become sentient as well. It's really a multi-tiered game, looks really interesting. Perhaps it's not an exact scientific representation of Evolution theory, but it does represent the working mechanics of Evolution. If we knew exactly how evolution works, we might realize that our existance was inevitable.
How's that for an open mind?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Darn it all! Where's baraka when we need her! She's pretty good at thinking outside the box, within the parameters of what science strictly knows and does not.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm meaning fate as in things being predestined, while also playing out in time.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
~Ron Burgundy
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ahhh, but 100%, undeniable, irrefutable, scientifically proven fact is pretty much BEYOND debate, so...
with that, i'm staying out of this one.
(Nice to se ya Scub).
Well if you are debating the facts, then no they are beyond debate. Evolution is a theory tying those facts together, so it is debatable. When creationists attack Evolution they are really attacking the underlying facts that Evolution is based on.
Such as, Humans evolved from ape-like creatures. Well we have fossil records linking us to ape-like creatures, and our genome makes the same correlations. So both our skeletal structure and our genomics factually point to our acenstory as ape-like creatures. Evolution explains how that happened, not that it did happen.
correlation and similarity do not indicate causality. I can look back and say that x and y are similar and I can hypothesize that one came from another or had similar origins, what I can't do is prove that they did. I can make an educated guess based on the fact that x and y are similar but I can't make an irrefutable claim that one led to another. Now if I do a prospective study and watch X devlop characteristics of Y then I can say that one led to the other.
That's what a hypothesis is, it's a prediction, it's not a scientific hypothesis if it can't be tested.
The theory of Evolution has spawned thousands of hypothesis that check out. Epidemiology is mostly based on hypothesis derived from evolution theory.
Take two plants of similar lineage and splice them together. Cut the top off both plants and switch them around. If you have the appropriate equipment, take samples of the plants' DNA first. After a generation, make notes of the observational differences in the F1 plant from both of it's parents. Now, assuming you have the proper equipment, extract the DNA from the F1 plant and compare it to the parent plants. If the F1 plant is not sterile it will produce F2 seeds, which you can grow and extract the DNA from it. You will likely notice phenotypic correlations between the F2 plant and the parents not seen in the F1 plant.
Now give the process a name, I call it Evolution.
If you think that's bad, check these guys out:
Hominid Species
The species here are listed roughly in order of appearance in the fossil record (note that this ordering is not meant to represent an evolutionary sequence), except that the robust australopithecines are kept together. Each name consists of a genus name (e.g. Australopithecus, Homo) which is always capitalized, and a specific name (e.g. africanus, erectus) which is always in lower case. Within the text, genus names are often omitted for brevity. Each species has a type specimen which was used to define it.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
This species was named in July 2002 from fossils discovered in Chad in Central Africa (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002). It is the oldest known hominid or near-hominid species, dated at between 6 and 7 million years old. This species is known from a nearly complete cranium nicknamed Toumai, and a number of fragmentary lower jaws and teeth. The skull has a very small brain size of approximately 350 cc. It is not known whether it was bipedal. S. tchadensis has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids. This mixture, along with the fact that it comes from around the time when the hominids are thought to have diverged from chimpanzees, suggests it is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.
Orrorin tugenensis
This species was named in July 2001 from fossils discovered in western Kenya (Senut et al. 2001). The fossils include fragmentary arm and thigh bones, lower jaws, and teeth and were discovered in deposits that are about 6 million years old. The limb bones are about 1.5 times larger than those of Lucy, and suggest that it was about the size of a female chimpanzee. Its finders have claimed that Orrorin was a human ancestor adapted to both bipedality and tree climbing, and that the australopithecines are an extinct offshoot. Given the fragmentary nature of the remains, other scientists have been skeptical of these claims so far (Aiello and Collard 2001). A later paper (Galik et al. 2004) has found further evidence of bipedality in the fossil femur.
Ardipithecus ramidus
This species was named in September 1994 (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). It was originally dated at 4.4 million years, but has since been discovered to far back as 5.8 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause revision of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White and his colleagues have since discovered a ramidus skeleton which is about 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)
More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned first to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001), and then later as a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with kadabba is not as firm as the other fossils.
Australopithecus anamensis
This species was named in August 1995 (Leakey et al. 1995). The material consists of 9 fossils, mostly found in 1994, from Kanapoi in Kenya, and 12 fossils, mostly teeth found in 1988, from Allia Bay in Kenya (Leakey et al. 1995). Anamensis existed between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago, and has a mixture of primitive features in the skull, and advanced features in the body. The teeth and jaws are very similar to those of older fossil apes. A partial tibia (the larger of the two lower leg bones) is strong evidence of bipedality, and a lower humerus (the upper arm bone) is extremely humanlike. Note that although the skull and skeletal bones are thought to be from the same species, this is not confirmed.
Australopithecus afarensis
A. afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. Afarensis had an apelike face with a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, and no chin. They had protruding jaws with large back teeth. Cranial capacity varied from about 375 to 550 cc. The skull is similar to that of a chimpanzee, except for the more humanlike teeth. The canine teeth are much smaller than those of modern apes, but larger and more pointed than those of humans, and shape of the jaw is between the rectangular shape of apes and the parabolic shape of humans. However their pelvis and leg bones far more closely resemble those of modern man, and leave no doubt that they were bipedal (although adapted to walking rather than running (Leakey 1994)). Their bones show that they were physically very strong. Females were substantially smaller than males, a condition known as sexual dimorphism. Height varied between about 107 cm (3'6") and 152 cm (5'0"). The finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, but the hands are similar to humans in most other details (Johanson and Edey 1981). Most scientists consider this evidence that afarensis was still partially adapted to climbing in trees, others consider it evolutionary baggage.
Kenyanthropus platyops
This species was named in 2001 from a partial skull found in Kenya with an unusual mixture of features (Leakey et al. 2001). It is aged about 3.5 million years old. The size of the skull is similar to A. afarensis and A. africanus, and has a large, flat face and small teeth.
Australopithecus africanus
A. africanus existed between 3 and 2 million years ago. It is similar to afarensis, and was also bipedal, but body size was slightly greater. Brain size may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 420 and 500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar body size), but still not advanced in the areas necessary for speech. The back teeth were a little bigger than in afarensis. Although the teeth and jaws of africanus are much larger than those of humans, they are far more similar to human teeth than to those of apes (Johanson and Edey 1981). The shape of the jaw is now fully parabolic, like that of humans, and the size of the canine teeth is further reduced compared to afarensis.
Australopithecus garhi
This species was named in April 1999 (Asfaw et al. 1999). It is known from a partial skull. The skull differs from previous australopithecine species in the combination of its features, notably the extremely large size of its teeth, especially the rear ones, and a primitive skull morphology. Some nearby skeletal remains may belong to the same species. They show a humanlike ratio of the humerus and femur, but an apelike ratio of the lower and upper arm. (Groves 1999; Culotta 1999)
Australopithecus afarensis and africanus, and the other species above, are known as gracile australopithecines, because of their relatively lighter build, especially in the skull and teeth. (Gracile means "slender", and in paleoanthropology is used as an antonym to "robust".) Despite this, they were still more robust than modern humans.
Australopithecus aethiopicus
A. aethiopicus existed between 2.6 and 2.3 million years ago. This species is known from one major specimen, the Black Skull discovered by Alan Walker, and a few other minor specimens which may belong to the same species. It may be an ancestor of robustus and boisei, but it has a baffling mixture of primitive and advanced traits. The brain size is very small, at 410 cc, and parts of the skull, particularly the hind portions, are very primitive, most resembling afarensis. Other characteristics, like the massiveness of the face, jaws and single tooth found, and the largest sagittal crest in any known hominid, are more reminiscent of A. boisei (Leakey and Lewin 1992). (A sagittal crest is a bony ridge on top of the skull to which chewing muscles attach.)
Australopithecus robustus
A. robustus had a body similar to that of africanus, but a larger and more robust skull and teeth. It existed between 2 and 1.5 million years ago. The massive face is flat or dished, with no forehead and large brow ridges. It has relatively small front teeth, but massive grinding teeth in a large lower jaw. Most specimens have sagittal crests. Its diet would have been mostly coarse, tough food that needed a lot of chewing. The average brain size is about 530 cc. Bones excavated with robustus skeletons indicate that they may have been used as digging tools.
Australopithecus boisei (was Zinjanthropus boisei)
A. boisei existed between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago. It was similar to robustus, but the face and cheek teeth were even more massive, some molars being up to 2 cm across. The brain size is very similar to robustus, about 530 cc. A few experts consider boisei and robustus to be variants of the same species.
Australopithecus aethiopicus, robustus and boisei are known as robust australopithecines, because their skulls in particular are more heavily built. They have never been serious candidates for being direct human ancestors. Many authorities now classify them in the genus Paranthropus.
Homo habilis
H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and H. erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been smaller.
Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils such as ER 1470.
Homo georgicus
This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 680 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002)
Homo erectus
H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). The skeleton is more robust than those of modern humans, implying greater strength. Body proportions vary; the Turkana Boy is tall and slender (though still extraordinarily strong), like modern humans from the same area, while the few limb bones found of Peking Man indicate a shorter, sturdier build. Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis 1989). Homo habilis and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and has been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There is evidence that erectus probably used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
All different species of hominid put here to test your faith
There are more but they wouldn't fit in one message.
Huh? I'm a biologist, and that confused the hell out of me. How is a layperson supposed to follow it?
So you're saying that if the F2 plants exhibit some of the same phenotypic characteristics as the original plants this is evidence of evolution? How? Anyway, you don't measure phenotype by looking at DNA. You're not making sense. I hate to say it, but I suspect that you really are just trying to wow everyone with your brilliance.
-C Addison
The F2 plant sharing the same phenotypic traits as the parents but not the F1 plant shows the complexity of evolution.
I know you don't messure phenotype by DNA, if you are looking for traits that expressed in one generation but not the next, it's best to look at the phenotype, looking at the DNA is another type of correlation. The experiment is designed to be observational, it's not as simple as just reading the outline of the experiment and assuming total knowledge.
How this doesn't make sense to you? I don't know.
I guess you'd have to be an evolutionary biologist?
I have a biologist friend as well and she has no problem understanding me. We converse all the time about this shit.
somebody actually said that on tv and people actually applauded him.
and if it were so, yeah, totally fucking with us,... no bueno
~Ron Burgundy
It certainly seems that way, I'm amazed faith is possible and so consistant with the knowledge we have now. Though many of these fossils were discovered in the last 5 to 10 years.
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
Yeah! Try going to Catholic school for 13 years and being taught both the Creationism and Evolution! Now that really messes with your head!
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
how I see things..not cheezy at all........and I'll even go as far as saying there are an infinite number of planets...and hence..there are an infinite number of people exactly like you. And yes...you are not "Special".
I wouldn't say exactly like us. Evolution and life are too variable to produce species just like us every time. I doubt our universe is like Star Trek where all the intelligent species look just like us, except with different things on their foreheads, lol.
-Ashley Montagu
Because Evolution denial stunts our growth as a species. Scientists are taking the theory of Evolution and developing cures and better understandings of people. Then these punk ID freaks come a long and try to put a wedge in all that great work. Since then a lot of science time has been spent arguing with these fanatics instead of curing cancer or AIDS.
Exactly, the fact that there are people out there trying to censore the truth is terrifying, regardless of what that truth is used for.
-Ashley Montagu
I don't think I'd want to be a biologist. Biology is constantly under attack by belief systems.
the fact that in formal education you do 4 years of study. for a phd it's more like 10. 10 years of in depth looks at the stuff. on top of that you do hands-on research. you read extensively, dozens and dozens of books, theories, articles. you have personal face to face interaction with experts on the subjects at issue. you are regularly tested on your level and depth of understanding. it gives a very nuanced and balanced perspective on the field.
you cannot get that just reading a bunch of books alone in your room and then watching a movie.
Why not? This is how I learn.
This seems to be a really common belief that "nothing can be learned outside of school". But if you actually step out into the real world, you find out that's not entirely true. Some people like myself find autodidactic studies far superior than organized classrooms. Four years is way too long to learn this shit, I'll be done three fields of study at least in that time.
It's like that year you spend in highschool learning to write proper sentances, perform algebra and jump rope. I learned all that in 2 weeks once I had the opportunity outside of school. The school system is good for some people, but not for me. I plan to read this book I'm reading twice, while looking up all the theories and terms online, watch a few lectures, then I move on. I'm not looking for a career and that's sufficient study for me.