chromosome 2 and thoughts on human evolution

Rhinocerous Surprise

angelica wrote:

It sounds like there is a misunderstanding. I didn't say they failed to use the scientific method at all.

I said all the ways we conceptualize what "is" is just that...concepts. It's how we explain things to ourselves, within our ability to understand ourselves. It's independent of what actually exists.

The scientific method is a way to understand reality. So is philosophy. So is religion. One does not invalidate the other even remotely. As a matter of fact, in reality, they all exist interwoven without conflict. The conflict and separation is in the human heart and ego.

I can sort of see your point: everything we comprehend, whether religious or scientific or whatever, is filtered through human consciousness, so it's all relative to humans' capacity for understanding.

Where I'd tend to differ is the concept that science is objective. Man's understanding of religion comes from within himself, but science is based on observations and proofs. I'm not sure I'm expressing myself too clearly here.:o I'm better off in the jokey topics... where's Christie?

Abookamongstthemany

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I can sort of see your point: everything we comprehend, whether religious or scientific or whatever, is filtered through human consciousness, so it's all relative to humans' capacity for understanding.

Where I'd tend to differ is the concept that science is objective. Man's understanding of religion comes from within himself, but science is based on observations and proofs. I'm not sure I'm expressing myself too clearly here.:o I'm better off in the jokey topics... where's Christie?

Staying away from the serious threads. Duh!





Being too serious right now would be next to impossible.

Rhinocerous Surprise

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Staying away from the serious threads. Duh!





Being too serious right now would be next to impossible.

Everytime I think about evolution, I wonder why we thought we'd be better off without the prehensile tail. Then I watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfGRBIZA64w
That's about as scientific as Alan gets.

baraka

I know this link has been posted by myself and others in threads about evolution, but here it is again. The site can answer a lot of questions about the topic (esp the 'it's just a theory' statement). Overall, I think I have to give the theory of evolution two thumbs up, as far as scientific theories are concerned. It's a pretty successful theory. Newer sciences such as genetics & molecular biology have only solidified this theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

angelica

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I can sort of see your point: everything we comprehend, whether religious or scientific or whatever, is filtered through human consciousness, so it's all relative to humans' capacity for understanding.

Where I'd tend to differ is the concept that science is objective. Man's understanding of religion comes from within himself, but science is based on observations and proofs. I'm not sure I'm expressing myself too clearly here.:o I'm better off in the jokey topics... where's Christie?

There are different types of intelligences. Intuitive and emotional intelligences are just as valid and are also ways of uncovering truth. Granted, the western world has prioritized linear/logical forms of intelligence and have decided they are supreme. That shows a preference, not an absolute.

At this point, the most realistic ways of understanding reality are holistic, which includes all forms on intelligences integrated into one whole, which results in an understanding of the whole. This is whole-brain thinking. It goes beyond logic/linearity alone, while also embracing and including it.

Rhinocerous Surprise

angelica wrote:

There are different types of intelligences. Intuitive and emotional intelligences are just as valid and are also ways of uncovering truth. Granted, the western world has prioritized linear/logical forms of intelligence and have decided they are supreme. That shows a preference, not an absolute.

At this point, the most realistic ways of understanding reality are holistic, which includes all forms on intelligences integrated into one whole, which results in an understanding of the whole. This is whole-brain thinking. It goes beyond logic/linearity alone, while also embracing and including it.

And this ^ is far too intelligent for me right now.

*watches monkey-smell-fall video again*

angelica

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

And this ^ is far too intelligent for me right now.

*watches monkey-smell-fall video again*

thanks for the laugh!



The bottom line is when we resolve the split in our own psyche and integrate our awareness in a whole-brain fashion, the splits, fragments and conflicts in the outside world disappear. They resolve and we see the world as it is...as unbroken wholeness.

baraka

angelica wrote:

The scientific method is a way to understand reality. So is philosophy. So is religion. One does not invalidate the other even remotely. As a matter of fact, in reality, they all exist interwoven without conflict. The conflict and separation is in the human heart and ego.

Nice post, angelica. This is the area I feel frustration. Sometimes I feel we are given a false choice. On one hand, you have the religious fundamentalist false choice between God or science, then on the other hand, you have some scientists making careers out of what they see as their superior extrapolation on matters that have NOT been proved empirically. Both of these things are tainting this amazing field of science.

Kel Varnsen

elmer wrote:

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is bollocks, that is why it's a theory, instead of a law. Man never evolved from ape. Where are the fossils to prove this progression from monkey to man? Bloody ludicrous, this is all brainwashing.

The theory of gravity and kinetic-molecular theory are also a theories, do you also think it is bollocks that they are taught. Just because they are theories doesn't mean there is a ton of evidence to back them up. I think you have the word theory (at least the scientific definition of it) mixed up with the word hypothesis.

Collin

cornnifer wrote:

Now, evolution debates around these parts have grown about as stale as abortion, and gay marriage, so i'll only comment to say that chromosome 2 doesn't really appear like a smoking gun to me. There is no smoking gun which is why my great great grandchildren will be listening to my pearl jam bootlegs and debating darwin on the moving train.

At least watch the video before you say it isn't a smoking gun.

decides2dream

baraka wrote:

I know this link has been posted by myself and others in threads about evolution, but here it is again. The site can answer a lot of questions about the topic (esp the 'it's just a theory' statement). Overall, I think I have to give the theory of evolution two thumbs up, as far as scientific theories are concerned. It's a pretty successful theory. Newer sciences such as genetics & molecular biology have only solidified this theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

i will most definitely check out this link and the first in the OP when i am off the clock. it IS a most fascinating topic, and i love to read ad find out all the more *discovered.* from what i gather from this thread and the synopsis of the video it sounds VERY promising/interesting/important discovery! however, i wll also say that i am a pretty firm believer in the theory of evolution to begin with. all i have learned, read, and continue to larn/read....seems thus far the most plausable and most well-informed theory out there. this chromosome 2 discovery most definitely seems, at first glance anyway...a very positive development in 'proving' the theory of evolution.....one step closer.......

Rhinocerous Surprise

"To those who do not believe in evolution: your children's children will."

Demetri Martin.

Cosmo

elmer wrote:

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is bollocks, that is why it's a theory, instead of a law. Man never evolved from ape. Where are the fossils to prove this progression from monkey to man? Bloody ludicrous, this is all brainwashing.

...
So, then I take it... you don't think Gravity exist either, because it's a Theory, too... you know? Plate techtonics is also a theory that explains earthquakes and continental shifts... doesn't exist either. Einstein's Theory of Relativity... well, that Einstein... what did that fool know?
...
And not being mean... just trying to make light of it... add a little humor here. But, you know... your comment and your screen name are a perfect match.

elmer

searchlightsoul wrote:

If you want to see the fossils supporting the human evolution, I suggest you get of your ass and take a walk down to your state natural history museum.

Are you sure there would be any evidence? As in fossils of the transitional stage between ape and man?

Take the idea of natural selection, why did a wingless bird ever evolve a wing? The initial wing stub must have made it tougher to survive in his environment, doesn't this go against the whole premise of natural selection? Or is the process not incremental, but building towards a goal many generations of bird ahead? Wouldn't that involve some god-like divine intelligence in that case?

Probably, no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way, not proven by empirical fact anyway.

Twas whilst reading Hooking Up by Tom Wolfe some years ago that I became sceptical of this evolution theory. Beware, he's a odd looking guy:

http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/wolfe/lecture.html

Cosmo

elmer wrote:

Are you sure there would be any evidence? As in fossils of the transitional stage between ape and man?

Take the idea of natural selection, why did a wingless bird ever evolve a wing? The initial wing stub must have made it tougher to survive in his environment, doesn't this go against the whole premise of natural selection? Or is the process not incremental, but building towards a goal many generations of bird ahead? Wouldn't that involve some god-like divine intelligence in that case?

Probably, no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way, not proven by empirical fact anyway.

Twas whilst reading Hooking Up by Tom Wolfe some years ago that I became sceptical of this evolution theory. Beware, he's a odd looking guy:

http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/wolfe/lecture.html

...
Actually.. the wingless bird LOST its wings. Wings for flight on something as heavy as an ostrich, for example, are useless. It is better for the ostrich to develop powerful legs to evade predators by outrunning them. Also, the trees in the regions where ostriches are found cannot support the weight of ostriches, perching on their branches.
Kiwis lost their wings because they were no longer needed. And wings are similar to arms.
Check this out:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/04/26/MN10698.DTL

elmer

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I think you have the word theory (at least the scientific definition of it) mixed up with the word hypothesis.

Maybe so, I'm taking theory for being supposition.

Rhinocerous Surprise

elmer wrote:

Maybe so, I'm taking theory for being supposition.

Yeah, theories are proven hypotheses. Common mistake - I had it pointed out to me by my Biological Scientist friend a few months ago.

baraka

elmer wrote:

Maybe so, I'm taking theory for being supposition.

Hi Elmer, check out the link I posted earlier in this thread http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

It will answer many questions for you on the topic, esp how the word 'theory' is used in the context of science.

Kel Varnsen

elmer wrote:

Are you sure there would be any evidence? As in fossils of the transitional stage between ape and man?

Take the idea of natural selection, why did a wingless bird ever evolve a wing? The initial wing stub must have made it tougher to survive in his environment, doesn't this go against the whole premise of natural selection? Or is the process not incremental, but building towards a goal many generations of bird ahead? Wouldn't that involve some god-like divine intelligence in that case?

Probably, no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way, not proven by empirical fact anyway.

You might want to check out this link which shows the fossil of a 375 million year old that started to show signs of evolving into a land animal. It has gills of a fish, but it has a head like a crocodile, and fins that are like half way between fish fins and hands.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik

Strangest Tribe

aliens came to earth and abducted the apes. they fused our #2 chromos and brought back another form of life to the planet...humans

that's why there is no "missing link"


....that's just the word on the streets