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.
That's all very true. And as far as I know there are no PhD evolutionary anthropologists who regularily visit this board, making me the leading authority (I have an honours degree in the subject, and have done EXTENSIVE studying of it on my own time, and plan on going further when I can) and I happen to agree with just about everything Ahnimus says.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
That's all very true. And as far as I know there are no PhD evolutionary anthropologists who regularily visit this board, making me the leading authority (I have an honours degree in the subject, and have done EXTENSIVE studying of it on my own time, and plan on going further when I can) and I happen to agree with just about everything Ahnimus says.
That's impossible, no one agrees with me. I'm like Nikola Tesla or Wilhelm Reich, but without all the formal education and practical experience, but you know what I mean. Even scientists thought those guys were looney.
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 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.
nah...you and I are out there....exact copies...just have to travel far enough....hyper speed....
I don't get this "Macro-evolution has not been observed"
I've looked over a lot of evidence supporting evolution and I'm pretty sure Macro-evolution is supported, even vestigal traits are evidence of this.
Maybe one of the formal biologists can answer that.
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
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.
There is also the other side of the coin. I have two years of high school, and am a drop-out. I've done extensive studying on my own since, on all kinds of subjects. I find that there are some basic schools of thought that are taught traditionally, and then there is everything else, including all information available. I find that often I know things that the traditionally taught are completely oblivious to. Many times I notice that the traditionally taught see what they've learned as "the way" and can't really respond to an idea from beyond the bounds of their sphere of awareness. I mean in the sense that they are trained to look at things in a certain way, and then they can't seem to see outside the box and wrap their minds around a different way of thinking. There are relatively few people at the top of the educational hierarchy passing down the basic systems of thought or who interpret the data and decide what gets taught. I have no doubt that such systems, like any other, can grow from the challenges from information from outside-the-box. Formal education is far from holding a monopoly on information.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't get this "Macro-evolution has not been observed"
I've looked over a lot of evidence supporting evolution and I'm pretty sure Macro-evolution is supported, even vestigal traits are evidence of this.
Maybe one of the formal biologists can answer that.
There is lots and lots of evidence for macro-evolution... lots. The problem is that the anti-evolutionists won't accept evidence for it unless they could watch a species transform into something else over millions of years, which, of course, given our relitively short life spans, is impossible. ...Very convenient for them if you as me.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Formal education is far from holding a monopoly on information.
That's true, but the structure created by an institution of formally educated people ensures that wacky ideas are not put forward.
There are lots of informally educated "experts". Unfortunately, a lot of them are the type of people who go on TV and say "aliens built the pyramids" and "humans were put here by Martians as an experiement" etc. With no formal peer evaluated structure to accept or debunk new ideas, people can come up with any idea that will make them money.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
That's true, but the structure created by an institution of formally educated people ensures that wacky ideas are not put forward.
There are lots of informally educated "experts". Unfortunately, a lot of them are the type of people who go on TV and say "aliens built the pyramids" and "humans were put here by Martians as an experiement" etc. With no formal peer evaluated structure to accept or debunk new ideas, people can come up with any idea that will make them money.
I think the big thing for me is that studying objective things, objectively, we lose ssssoooooooooooo much of life. Studying exteriors of things/systems on the logical level alone is great being what it is. However we have not evolved enough that integrated intelligence is the norm. This lack of integration causes us to unconsciously distort all kinds of our "information" unwittingly. Which is why when we make advancements in 500 years, it will be with stuff that is right before our eyes, right now, and that we are currently blind to. To me, I see the validity of non-science and those experts that go on TV and say..... . I plan on being one of those experts. It was not the medical doctors and psychologists who healed my many disorders, including the big genetic ones. It was a lot of non-traditional knowledge, and subjective interpretation and faith in the non-traditional. The medical profession wanted me to take medication for the rest of my life. Instead, I interacted directly with the evolutionary forces I am tapped into, and learned to "read" my life and adapt consciously. I will go forward, use the art of writing and emotional appeal in the guise of logic, and I will influence people towards learning to adapt on their own instead of giving up their personal power to medication as is now considered scientifically the best offer. It's not. People are EMPOWERED by awakening the emotional and intuitive intelligences and operating from a whole-brain perspective.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
There is lots and lots of evidence for macro-evolution... lots. The problem is that the anti-evolutionists won't accept evidence for it unless they could watch a species transform into something else over millions of years, which, of course, given our relitively short life spans, is impossible. ...Very convenient for them if you as me.
It's interesting a creationist fellow I work with claims "I've read everything about evolution, I've read it all and right away I noticed major holes in the theory."
I've read a huge amount, I won't say "everything" but who has? I didn't see any major holes, or even any noticable holes. Then I watched this film on video.google.com called "lies in the textbook" which claimed to show these holes and they were blatantly wrong. Their claims were simply "it's not mentioned in the bible", "there are missing links", "the complexity of the irreducable flagellum", etc..
They even argued that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood. They said it could not have been created by stream erosion because the stream's entry point is lower than the exit point. The major flaw in their logic is that they were measuring the surface around the grand canyon, not the elevation within it, they are also assuming that the land hasn't changed in 2500 years.
Though, it's nearly impossible to convince many of these creationists that their method of thought is flawed. They are starting with a conclusion and trying to find evidence to support it, while the scientists are starting with evidence and finding hypothesis to test theories.
It's a shame that they look down on Darwin, because he should be a symbol of progressive thought processes. He was a dedicated catholic and at times felt Evolution was herecy. He spent 40 years working on it, refining it and ended up forcing himself to admit it was true. His scientific thoughts based on observations and facts caused him to believe in Evolution, while his religious thoughts based on biblical text struggled to thwart Evolution. In the end, the truth prevailed in Darwin's mind.
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's interesting a creationist fellow I work with claims "I've read everything about evolution, I've read it all and right away I noticed major holes in the theory."
It's hilarious because most peoples understanding of evolution comes from their grade 9 science class and that's it, yet they think their little holes that they point out are valid. People invest years into learning every little nuance about this, yet uneducated creationists think they can say "yeah but, blah blah blah" and think they have a point, when really this problem was answered 140 years ago. Its like me argueing physics with stephen hawking.
It's a shame that they look down on Darwin, because he should be a symbol of progressive thought processes. He was a dedicated catholic and at times felt Evolution was herecy. He spent 40 years working on it, refining it and ended up forcing himself to admit it was true. His scientific thoughts based on observations and facts caused him to believe in Evolution, while his religious thoughts based on biblical text struggled to thwart Evolution. In the end, the truth prevailed in Darwin's mind.
Exactly, he was torn in half over what he was taught in church and by what his own sense told him. He might never have published if Alfred Wallace hadn't come up with the same theory of evolution and threatened to steal his thunder. He was also highly distressed that he had no mechanism for the mysterious mutation element in the theory. That of course didn't come along until Mendalian genetics were figured out.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Exactly, he was torn in half over what he was taught in church and by what his own sense told him. He might never have published if Alfred Wallace hadn't come up with the same theory of evolution and threatened to steal his thunder. He was also highly distressed that he had no mechanism for the mysterious mutation element in the theory. That of course didn't come along until Mendalian genetics were figured out.
Didn't Wallace and Darwin work together afterwards? I've heard Wallace's name come up a few times in texts about Evolution, but all I really know about him was that he had the same basic theory Darwin did and that he has consistently admitted that Darwin's theory was far superior to his own. Of course Darwin had spent about 20 years on Evolution by that time.
I also heard that one of Darwin's daughters died unexpectedly around the time he released his findings. Some figure that might have something to do with his change of mind as well.
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
Didn't Wallace and Darwin work together afterwards? I've heard Wallace's name come up a few times in texts about Evolution, but all I really know about him was that he had the same basic theory Darwin did and that he has consistently admitted that Darwin's theory was far superior to his own. Of course Darwin had spent about 20 years on Evolution by that time.
I also heard that one of Darwin's daughters died unexpectedly around the time he released his findings. Some figure that might have something to do with his change of mind as well.
The two's initial papers were introduced by friends of Darwins (who was in ill health) at the Linnaean Society meeting with the following introduction as per Darwin's request:
The accompanying papers, which we have the honor of communicating to the Linnaean Society, and which related to the same subject, vix. the Laws which affect the Production of Varieties, Races, and Species, contain the results of the investigations of two indefatigable naturalists, Mr. Charles Darwin and Mr. Alfred Russel Walace... having independentaly and unkown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory"
Interesting. I"m not sure if they ever worked together. Darwin's health didn't allow him to do a whole lot more and I think Wallace sort of disapeared into obscurity. I'd look it up more, but i'm a little under the weather tonight.
I don't know about his dauther, the book i just looked up mentioned something about a boy dying, but not who. I'm not up to reading a whole chapter right now...
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
The two's initial papers were introduced by friends of Darwins (who was in ill health) at the Linnaean Society meeting with the following introduction as per Darwin's request:
The accompanying papers, which we have the honor of communicating to the Linnaean Society, and which related to the same subject, vix. the Laws which affect the Production of Varieties, Races, and Species, contain the results of the investigations of two indefatigable naturalists, Mr. Charles Darwin and Mr. Alfred Russel Walace... having independentaly and unkown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory"
Interesting. I"m not sure if they ever worked together. Darwin's health didn't allow him to do a whole lot more and I think Wallace sort of disapeared into obscurity. I'd look it up more, but i'm a little under the weather tonight.
I don't know about his dauther, the book i just looked up mentioned something about a boy dying, but not who. I'm not up to reading a whole chapter right now...
That's understandable, interesting stuff. I guess most Creationists just view Darwin as the anti-christ.
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 don't get this "Macro-evolution has not been observed"
I've looked over a lot of evidence supporting evolution and I'm pretty sure Macro-evolution is supported, even vestigal traits are evidence of this.
Maybe one of the formal biologists can answer that.
The fossil evidence for macroevolution is overwhelming. The problem is that given our short lifespans, there is no way that we can actually observe the process of formation of new species (except maybe in microbial systems).
Vestigial traits aren't really the best example to point at if you want to argue with the ID clowns. If they're on the ball (and few of them are) they'll argue that vestigial parts are only evidence of degenerative change, not constructive change that leads to the formation of new structures. Our appendix, for example, is a vestigial remnant of the caecum our mammalian ancestors used to digest coarse vegetation. As our diet changed over the years, it was no longer needed, so mutations that led to its shrinkage and degeneration had no negative effect on survival.
And regarding education. . . I was told by an old professor once that a good scientist realises that no matter how much you learn, you never really know very much. That may be something for you to take note of.
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!
The fossil evidence for macroevolution is overwhelming. The problem is that given our short lifespans, there is no way that we can actually observe the process of formation of new species (except maybe in microbial systems).
Vestigial traits aren't really the best example to point at if you want to argue with the ID clowns. If they're on the ball (and few of them are) they'll argue that vestigial parts are only evidence of degenerative change, not constructive change that leads to the formation of new structures. Our appendix, for example, is a vestigial remnant of the caecum our mammalian ancestors used to digest coarse vegetation. As our diet changed over the years, it was no longer needed, so mutations that led to its shrinkage and degeneration had no negative effect on survival.
Well, that arguement is one-sided. They accept evidence of degenerative change but don't accept the possibility of constructive change. In the evolutionary sense, it's all change, good or bad, it's the same mechanisms. Many people are born with extra limbs, that could be viewed as a constructive change, but society at large doesn't view it that way. Certainly the creationsists won't.
And regarding education. . . I was told by an old professor once that a good scientist realises that no matter how much you learn, you never really know very much. That may be something for you to take note of.
"To know that we know what we know and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge" ~Copernicus
Yea, a great scientist told me that too. You will notice in a post a few prior I fully admitted to not having read or know everything about 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
Actually, now that I think about it, vestigal traits are evidence of constructive evolution.
Why do humans have no use for the pancreas? Because we constructively evolved in some other way. Our olfactory senses have degenerated because of our constructive brain evolution.
The Manatee doesn't need the hip or legs anymore because it constructively evolved into a sea creature.
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
Actually, now that I think about it, vestigal traits are evidence of constructive evolution.
Why do humans have no use for the pancreas? Because we constructively evolved in some other way. Our olfactory senses have degenerated because of our constructive brain evolution.
The Manatee doesn't need the hip or legs anymore because it constructively evolved into a sea creature.
I completely agree with you. Its just that the argument that the IDers use is that mutations in the genetic material of living things are only capable of causing degenerative change in genes that already exist, not formation of new genes with new functions. They interpret the loss of function of vestigial parts as evidence of this. For the most part this is actually true. All organisms have a huge arsenal of specialised enzymes that do nothing but identify and repair damaged or mutated DNA in an attemt to prevent that degeneration. None of these repair systems are perfect however, and as we know, mutations still happen.
The problem with this argument is that it only focusses on one mechanism of genetic change, and ignores the potential of others to produce novel genes.
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!
I completely agree with you. Its just that the argument that the IDers use is that mutations in the genetic material of living things are only capable of causing degenerative change in genes that already exist, not formation of new genes with new functions. They interpret the loss of function of vestigial parts as evidence of this. For the most part this is actually true. All organisms have a huge arsenal of specialised enzymes that do nothing but identify and repair damaged or mutated DNA in an attemt to prevent that degeneration. None of these repair systems are perfect however, and as we know, mutations still happen.
The problem with this argument is that it only focusses on one mechanism of genetic change, and ignores the potential of others to produce novel genes.
If the IDers were correct, wouldn't that mean devolution?
So, basically we start off as complex multi-celled organisms and over time degenerate into bacteria?
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
Back to the subject of probability and fate. . . I just had a terrifying thought (while sitting on the toilet).
What if, at the moment the universe came into existence, the trajectories of every single subatomic particle were irreversibly set in motion (during the big bang)? If all the matter in the universe started its motion at that moment, and there has never been any outside interference since, the fate of the entire universe must have been determined then. Every collision between two atoms, every emission of every photon, it would have all been determined at that moment. Everything that happens after that is inevitable. The formation of stars and planets, the assembly of organic molecules into the first living things. When you boil them down they're all just movement of matter and transfer of energy. If it was all predetermined by those first trajectories, then the evolution of humans really was fate. And it was fated that humans would stack those stones up to build the pyramids, and fated that they'd fight all the wars in history. It was fate that all the millions of sacs of matter that we call people would bump into each other in the manner that we call sex. And it was fate that I'd end up sitting here at my computer, whose atoms were assembled by billions of years predetermined collisions, thinking these thoughts.
I don't know enough physics to come up with an argument to convince myself that I'm wrong. I feel sick.
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!
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.
wait a second so a denial of evolution means research into a cure for aids and cancer is put on hold? that is insane.....i doubt a scientist's view on this matter stops him or her doing contrustive research in such areas. i would like to see an example of evolution or ID for that matter that has actually led to today's humanity having a better standard of life.
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
Back to the subject of probability and fate. . . I just had a terrifying thought (while sitting on the toilet).
What if, at the moment the universe came into existence, the trajectories of every single subatomic particle were irreversibly set in motion (during the big bang)? If all the matter in the universe started its motion at that moment, and there has never been any outside interference since, the fate of the entire universe must have been determined then. Every collision between two atoms, every emission of every photon, it would have all been determined at that moment. Everything that happens after that is inevitable. The formation of stars and planets, the assembly of organic molecules into the first living things. When you boil them down they're all just movement of matter and transfer of energy. If it was all predetermined by those first trajectories, then the evolution of humans really was fate. And it was fated that humans would stack those stones up to build the pyramids, and fated that they'd fight all the wars in history. It was fate that all the millions of sacs of matter that we call people would bump into each other in the manner that we call sex. And it was fate that I'd end up sitting here at my computer, whose atoms were assembled by billions of years predetermined collisions, thinking these thoughts.
I don't know enough physics to come up with an argument to convince myself that I'm wrong. I feel sick.
That's my inclination. It's perceived chance, but, I hadn't traced it back that far.
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
wait a second so a denial of evolution means research into a cure for aids and cancer is put on hold? that is insane.....i doubt a scientist's view on this matter stops him or her doing contrustive research in such areas. i would like to see an example of evolution or ID for that matter that has actually led to today's humanity having a better standard of life.
Rett's syndrome
Rett syndrome (symbolized RTT) is X-linked dominant, affecting almost exclusively girls. Development is normal until 6-18 months, when language and motor milestones regress, purposeful hand use is lost and acquired microcephaly is seen. Hand-wringing and sighing are characteristic, and those affected develop autistic behavior. Rett syndrome is usually caused by a mutation in the gene encoding methyl-CpG-binding protein-2 (MECP2). MECP2 is found on chromosome band Xq28, near the long end of the X chromosome. Rett syndrome can also be caused by a mutation to the gene encoding cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5). Rett syndrome affects one in every 12,500 female live births http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rett%27s_syndrome#Cause
Using Evolution theory scientist Huda Zoghbi traced the cause of Rett's syndrome to a mutated gene. Without the evolutionary concept of gene mutation, she never would have looked at genes as the cause.
If we stuck with the "Man was created in God's image" and "Man is perfect" paradigms, we would just assume that the individual did something to piss off God.
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
That's my inclination. It's perceived chance, but, I hadn't traced it back that far.
Think about it though. If that is the case, evolution doesn't matter. More importantly there's no such thing as chance, or choice, or free will. None of our decisions are really our own, none of our thoughts are our own. It doesn't matter what we do, because we were going to do it anyway. . . .
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!
Rett syndrome (symbolized RTT) is X-linked dominant, affecting almost exclusively girls. Development is normal until 6-18 months, when language and motor milestones regress, purposeful hand use is lost and acquired microcephaly is seen. Hand-wringing and sighing are characteristic, and those affected develop autistic behavior. Rett syndrome is usually caused by a mutation in the gene encoding methyl-CpG-binding protein-2 (MECP2). MECP2 is found on chromosome band Xq28, near the long end of the X chromosome. Rett syndrome can also be caused by a mutation to the gene encoding cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5). Rett syndrome affects one in every 12,500 female live births http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rett%27s_syndrome#Cause
Using Evolution theory scientist Huda Zoghbi traced the cause of Rett's syndrome to a mutated gene. Without the evolutionary concept of gene mutation, she never would have looked at genes as the cause.
If we stuck with the "Man was created in God's image" and "Man is perfect" paradigms, we would just assume that the individual did something to piss off God.
More that I can recall from the Lecture on Rett's syndrome.
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
And regarding education. . . I was told by an old professor once that a good scientist realises that no matter how much you learn, you never really know very much. That may be something for you to take note of.
one of my favorites regarding education is...the greater your island of knowledge the greater the shore of ignorance... or something like that
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Rett syndrome (symbolized RTT) is X-linked dominant, affecting almost exclusively girls. Development is normal until 6-18 months, when language and motor milestones regress, purposeful hand use is lost and acquired microcephaly is seen. Hand-wringing and sighing are characteristic, and those affected develop autistic behavior. Rett syndrome is usually caused by a mutation in the gene encoding methyl-CpG-binding protein-2 (MECP2). MECP2 is found on chromosome band Xq28, near the long end of the X chromosome. Rett syndrome can also be caused by a mutation to the gene encoding cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5). Rett syndrome affects one in every 12,500 female live births http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rett%27s_syndrome#Cause
Using Evolution theory scientist Huda Zoghbi traced the cause of Rett's syndrome to a mutated gene. Without the evolutionary concept of gene mutation, she never would have looked at genes as the cause.
If we stuck with the "Man was created in God's image" and "Man is perfect" paradigms, we would just assume that the individual did something to piss off God.
Well if we stayed back in the middle ages in "man was created in God's image" then I would say you would be correct. However if you've done any research into the ID or creationist camps you would know they readily accept gene mutation and so your point is irrelevant. I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue, I think there are gaping holes in the arguements of both sides and its an interesting debating topic. But I don't think it really has any relevance to the lives of most people unless they happen to be a 6 day creationist and defend it in order to defend their faith or they are an ardent athiest such as Richard Dawkins and they wish to write a book such as "The God Delusion."
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
Think about it though. If that is the case, evolution doesn't matter. More importantly there's no such thing as chance, or choice, or free will. None of our decisions are really our own, none of our thoughts are our own. It doesn't matter what we do, because we were going to do it anyway. . . .
Yea
That's where I am with Nikola Tesla and Willhelm Reich. In the field of psychology, this is commonly called "Radical Behaviorism". But I don't see a more feasable explanation. The evolution of psychology has been leading us in that direction.
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
Well if we stayed back in the middle ages in "man was created in God's image" then I would say you would be correct. However if you've done any research into the ID or creationist camps you would know they readily accept gene mutation and so your point is irrelevant. I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue, I think there are gaping holes in the arguements of both sides and its an interesting debating topic. But I don't think it really has any relevance to the lives of most people unless they happen to be a 6 day creationist and defend it in order to defend their faith or they are an ardent athiest such as Richard Dawkins and they wish to write a book such as "The God Delusion."
So, I guess the IDers are slowly accepting Evolution then. So far they have accepted enough to de-evolve us into amoebas.
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
Why do you post stuff like this? Its completely irrelevant to the discussion when taken out of context like that, and almost nobody here is going to understand it anyway.
Do you even know what a trinucleotide repeat sequence is? Or polymerase? My guess is no, since you spelled both of them incorrectly.
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!
So, I guess the IDers are slowly accepting Evolution then. So far they have accepted enough to de-evolve us into amoebas.
I don't think you really understand what the ID and creationist camps actually accept. They would accept that genes do mutate and that changes do occur that lead to slightly different animals in different environments. For example if a bat lost its sight and that actually became an advantage in its environment. However neither of the two groups would accept that species evolve in an upward motion until homo sapiens came along. The difference is the creationists follow a literal reading of the bible and believe the earth is about 6000 years old, whereas the ID camp would easily accept an universe that is billions of years old. The ID camp makes more sense in my view......
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
Comments
That's all very true. And as far as I know there are no PhD evolutionary anthropologists who regularily visit this board, making me the leading authority (I have an honours degree in the subject, and have done EXTENSIVE studying of it on my own time, and plan on going further when I can) and I happen to agree with just about everything Ahnimus says.
-Ashley Montagu
That's impossible, no one agrees with me. I'm like Nikola Tesla or Wilhelm Reich, but without all the formal education and practical experience, but you know what I mean. Even scientists thought those guys were looney.
nah...you and I are out there....exact copies...just have to travel far enough....hyper speed....
I've looked over a lot of evidence supporting evolution and I'm pretty sure Macro-evolution is supported, even vestigal traits are evidence of this.
Maybe one of the formal biologists can answer that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There is lots and lots of evidence for macro-evolution... lots. The problem is that the anti-evolutionists won't accept evidence for it unless they could watch a species transform into something else over millions of years, which, of course, given our relitively short life spans, is impossible. ...Very convenient for them if you as me.
-Ashley Montagu
That's true, but the structure created by an institution of formally educated people ensures that wacky ideas are not put forward.
There are lots of informally educated "experts". Unfortunately, a lot of them are the type of people who go on TV and say "aliens built the pyramids" and "humans were put here by Martians as an experiement" etc. With no formal peer evaluated structure to accept or debunk new ideas, people can come up with any idea that will make them money.
-Ashley Montagu
I think the big thing for me is that studying objective things, objectively, we lose ssssoooooooooooo much of life. Studying exteriors of things/systems on the logical level alone is great being what it is. However we have not evolved enough that integrated intelligence is the norm. This lack of integration causes us to unconsciously distort all kinds of our "information" unwittingly. Which is why when we make advancements in 500 years, it will be with stuff that is right before our eyes, right now, and that we are currently blind to. To me, I see the validity of non-science and those experts that go on TV and say..... . I plan on being one of those experts. It was not the medical doctors and psychologists who healed my many disorders, including the big genetic ones. It was a lot of non-traditional knowledge, and subjective interpretation and faith in the non-traditional. The medical profession wanted me to take medication for the rest of my life. Instead, I interacted directly with the evolutionary forces I am tapped into, and learned to "read" my life and adapt consciously. I will go forward, use the art of writing and emotional appeal in the guise of logic, and I will influence people towards learning to adapt on their own instead of giving up their personal power to medication as is now considered scientifically the best offer. It's not. People are EMPOWERED by awakening the emotional and intuitive intelligences and operating from a whole-brain perspective.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's interesting a creationist fellow I work with claims "I've read everything about evolution, I've read it all and right away I noticed major holes in the theory."
I've read a huge amount, I won't say "everything" but who has? I didn't see any major holes, or even any noticable holes. Then I watched this film on video.google.com called "lies in the textbook" which claimed to show these holes and they were blatantly wrong. Their claims were simply "it's not mentioned in the bible", "there are missing links", "the complexity of the irreducable flagellum", etc..
They even argued that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood. They said it could not have been created by stream erosion because the stream's entry point is lower than the exit point. The major flaw in their logic is that they were measuring the surface around the grand canyon, not the elevation within it, they are also assuming that the land hasn't changed in 2500 years.
Though, it's nearly impossible to convince many of these creationists that their method of thought is flawed. They are starting with a conclusion and trying to find evidence to support it, while the scientists are starting with evidence and finding hypothesis to test theories.
It's a shame that they look down on Darwin, because he should be a symbol of progressive thought processes. He was a dedicated catholic and at times felt Evolution was herecy. He spent 40 years working on it, refining it and ended up forcing himself to admit it was true. His scientific thoughts based on observations and facts caused him to believe in Evolution, while his religious thoughts based on biblical text struggled to thwart Evolution. In the end, the truth prevailed in Darwin's mind.
It's hilarious because most peoples understanding of evolution comes from their grade 9 science class and that's it, yet they think their little holes that they point out are valid. People invest years into learning every little nuance about this, yet uneducated creationists think they can say "yeah but, blah blah blah" and think they have a point, when really this problem was answered 140 years ago. Its like me argueing physics with stephen hawking.
Exactly, he was torn in half over what he was taught in church and by what his own sense told him. He might never have published if Alfred Wallace hadn't come up with the same theory of evolution and threatened to steal his thunder. He was also highly distressed that he had no mechanism for the mysterious mutation element in the theory. That of course didn't come along until Mendalian genetics were figured out.
-Ashley Montagu
Didn't Wallace and Darwin work together afterwards? I've heard Wallace's name come up a few times in texts about Evolution, but all I really know about him was that he had the same basic theory Darwin did and that he has consistently admitted that Darwin's theory was far superior to his own. Of course Darwin had spent about 20 years on Evolution by that time.
I also heard that one of Darwin's daughters died unexpectedly around the time he released his findings. Some figure that might have something to do with his change of mind as well.
The two's initial papers were introduced by friends of Darwins (who was in ill health) at the Linnaean Society meeting with the following introduction as per Darwin's request:
The accompanying papers, which we have the honor of communicating to the Linnaean Society, and which related to the same subject, vix. the Laws which affect the Production of Varieties, Races, and Species, contain the results of the investigations of two indefatigable naturalists, Mr. Charles Darwin and Mr. Alfred Russel Walace... having independentaly and unkown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory"
Interesting. I"m not sure if they ever worked together. Darwin's health didn't allow him to do a whole lot more and I think Wallace sort of disapeared into obscurity. I'd look it up more, but i'm a little under the weather tonight.
I don't know about his dauther, the book i just looked up mentioned something about a boy dying, but not who. I'm not up to reading a whole chapter right now...
-Ashley Montagu
That's understandable, interesting stuff. I guess most Creationists just view Darwin as the anti-christ.
The fossil evidence for macroevolution is overwhelming. The problem is that given our short lifespans, there is no way that we can actually observe the process of formation of new species (except maybe in microbial systems).
Vestigial traits aren't really the best example to point at if you want to argue with the ID clowns. If they're on the ball (and few of them are) they'll argue that vestigial parts are only evidence of degenerative change, not constructive change that leads to the formation of new structures. Our appendix, for example, is a vestigial remnant of the caecum our mammalian ancestors used to digest coarse vegetation. As our diet changed over the years, it was no longer needed, so mutations that led to its shrinkage and degeneration had no negative effect on survival.
And regarding education. . . I was told by an old professor once that a good scientist realises that no matter how much you learn, you never really know very much. That may be something for you to take note of.
-C Addison
Well, that arguement is one-sided. They accept evidence of degenerative change but don't accept the possibility of constructive change. In the evolutionary sense, it's all change, good or bad, it's the same mechanisms. Many people are born with extra limbs, that could be viewed as a constructive change, but society at large doesn't view it that way. Certainly the creationsists won't.
"To know that we know what we know and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge" ~Copernicus
Yea, a great scientist told me that too. You will notice in a post a few prior I fully admitted to not having read or know everything about Evolution.
Why do humans have no use for the pancreas? Because we constructively evolved in some other way. Our olfactory senses have degenerated because of our constructive brain evolution.
The Manatee doesn't need the hip or legs anymore because it constructively evolved into a sea creature.
I completely agree with you. Its just that the argument that the IDers use is that mutations in the genetic material of living things are only capable of causing degenerative change in genes that already exist, not formation of new genes with new functions. They interpret the loss of function of vestigial parts as evidence of this. For the most part this is actually true. All organisms have a huge arsenal of specialised enzymes that do nothing but identify and repair damaged or mutated DNA in an attemt to prevent that degeneration. None of these repair systems are perfect however, and as we know, mutations still happen.
The problem with this argument is that it only focusses on one mechanism of genetic change, and ignores the potential of others to produce novel genes.
-C Addison
If the IDers were correct, wouldn't that mean devolution?
So, basically we start off as complex multi-celled organisms and over time degenerate into bacteria?
What if, at the moment the universe came into existence, the trajectories of every single subatomic particle were irreversibly set in motion (during the big bang)? If all the matter in the universe started its motion at that moment, and there has never been any outside interference since, the fate of the entire universe must have been determined then. Every collision between two atoms, every emission of every photon, it would have all been determined at that moment. Everything that happens after that is inevitable. The formation of stars and planets, the assembly of organic molecules into the first living things. When you boil them down they're all just movement of matter and transfer of energy. If it was all predetermined by those first trajectories, then the evolution of humans really was fate. And it was fated that humans would stack those stones up to build the pyramids, and fated that they'd fight all the wars in history. It was fate that all the millions of sacs of matter that we call people would bump into each other in the manner that we call sex. And it was fate that I'd end up sitting here at my computer, whose atoms were assembled by billions of years predetermined collisions, thinking these thoughts.
I don't know enough physics to come up with an argument to convince myself that I'm wrong. I feel sick.
-C Addison
wait a second so a denial of evolution means research into a cure for aids and cancer is put on hold? that is insane.....i doubt a scientist's view on this matter stops him or her doing contrustive research in such areas. i would like to see an example of evolution or ID for that matter that has actually led to today's humanity having a better standard of life.
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?
That's my inclination. It's perceived chance, but, I hadn't traced it back that far.
Rett's syndrome
Rett syndrome (symbolized RTT) is X-linked dominant, affecting almost exclusively girls. Development is normal until 6-18 months, when language and motor milestones regress, purposeful hand use is lost and acquired microcephaly is seen. Hand-wringing and sighing are characteristic, and those affected develop autistic behavior. Rett syndrome is usually caused by a mutation in the gene encoding methyl-CpG-binding protein-2 (MECP2). MECP2 is found on chromosome band Xq28, near the long end of the X chromosome. Rett syndrome can also be caused by a mutation to the gene encoding cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5). Rett syndrome affects one in every 12,500 female live births
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rett%27s_syndrome#Cause
Using Evolution theory scientist Huda Zoghbi traced the cause of Rett's syndrome to a mutated gene. Without the evolutionary concept of gene mutation, she never would have looked at genes as the cause.
If we stuck with the "Man was created in God's image" and "Man is perfect" paradigms, we would just assume that the individual did something to piss off God.
Think about it though. If that is the case, evolution doesn't matter. More importantly there's no such thing as chance, or choice, or free will. None of our decisions are really our own, none of our thoughts are our own. It doesn't matter what we do, because we were going to do it anyway. . . .
-C Addison
More that I can recall from the Lecture on Rett's syndrome.
During the trinucleid repeat sequence the code coming from the Helicase into the prolymerase is jammed up and coiled irregularily, during the second repeat cycle an extension is created. Then there is X inactivation and a whole bunch of other stuff that happens. You can learn about it here http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/neuroscience/animations.html
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/neuroscience/lectures.html
one of my favorites regarding education is...the greater your island of knowledge the greater the shore of ignorance... or something like that
Well if we stayed back in the middle ages in "man was created in God's image" then I would say you would be correct. However if you've done any research into the ID or creationist camps you would know they readily accept gene mutation and so your point is irrelevant. I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue, I think there are gaping holes in the arguements of both sides and its an interesting debating topic. But I don't think it really has any relevance to the lives of most people unless they happen to be a 6 day creationist and defend it in order to defend their faith or they are an ardent athiest such as Richard Dawkins and they wish to write a book such as "The God Delusion."
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?
Yea
That's where I am with Nikola Tesla and Willhelm Reich. In the field of psychology, this is commonly called "Radical Behaviorism". But I don't see a more feasable explanation. The evolution of psychology has been leading us in that direction.
So, I guess the IDers are slowly accepting Evolution then. So far they have accepted enough to de-evolve us into amoebas.
Why do you post stuff like this? Its completely irrelevant to the discussion when taken out of context like that, and almost nobody here is going to understand it anyway.
Do you even know what a trinucleotide repeat sequence is? Or polymerase? My guess is no, since you spelled both of them incorrectly.
-C Addison
I don't think you really understand what the ID and creationist camps actually accept. They would accept that genes do mutate and that changes do occur that lead to slightly different animals in different environments. For example if a bat lost its sight and that actually became an advantage in its environment. However neither of the two groups would accept that species evolve in an upward motion until homo sapiens came along. The difference is the creationists follow a literal reading of the bible and believe the earth is about 6000 years old, whereas the ID camp would easily accept an universe that is billions of years old. The ID camp makes more sense in my view......
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?