Texas- voters to decide on alternative to Darwinism....
Discussion
sstein said:
1) It doesn't explain the origin of life. --- Well he's right it doesn't, that would be abiogenesis. Saying that evolution is not a valid theory because it doesn't explain a very different set of events is akin to saying that Pythagoras theorem isn't a valid way describe right angled triangles because it doesn't explain fluid dynamics in a vacuum.
I have two problems with evolution. 1 is time scales.For instance, a little horse (about the size of a dog) became a big horse (like we have today) over 300m years. Yeah, not exactly a great advance since the earth is 4bn years old or so. 10% of the earths time was taken with the horse becoming bigger. In the same amount of time, man went from ape to moron?
The second problem is this.
Why isn't there another species like man? Look at what man has achieved (and please don't come back with a glib answer like war etc). We have language, we build things, we research things, we build better things etc. What other animal on the planet does that?
There aren't even any subsets of man. There are 3 types of human (caucasoid, negroid and mongoloids) and we're all about equal. Surely, with evolution we should have some sub sets of nearly humans who are doing their best? Or are they chavs? I forget.
Just seems to me that evolution is the best we've come up with "so far". What concerns me is that we are 19th century by fixating on a single theory and dismissing every other theory at an instant, because it offends the "one" theory we are happy with.
How come humans don't turn into monkeys anymore?
I think the one massive evolutionary advantage we have come up with is communication which is sufficient to pass the knowledge of one generation on to the next. Chimps use tools, many animals warn each other of dangers, some micro organisms farm other organisms for food, yet none pass on their knowledge as building blocks to others.
If you look at any of the great apes they really aren't that far behind us in many ways, the key difference is that they approach something like a door as entirely new with no point of reference, and it is, understandably, mind boggling. A human on the other hand is able to use doors, machinery and computers by building on what he has learned from older humans.
I think the one massive evolutionary advantage we have come up with is communication which is sufficient to pass the knowledge of one generation on to the next. Chimps use tools, many animals warn each other of dangers, some micro organisms farm other organisms for food, yet none pass on their knowledge as building blocks to others.
If you look at any of the great apes they really aren't that far behind us in many ways, the key difference is that they approach something like a door as entirely new with no point of reference, and it is, understandably, mind boggling. A human on the other hand is able to use doors, machinery and computers by building on what he has learned from older humans.
tinman0 said:
sstein said:
1) It doesn't explain the origin of life. --- Well he's right it doesn't, that would be abiogenesis. Saying that evolution is not a valid theory because it doesn't explain a very different set of events is akin to saying that Pythagoras theorem isn't a valid way describe right angled triangles because it doesn't explain fluid dynamics in a vacuum.
I have two problems with evolution. 1 is time scales.For instance, a little horse (about the size of a dog) became a big horse (like we have today) over 300m years. Yeah, not exactly a great advance since the earth is 4bn years old or so. 10% of the earths time was taken with the horse becoming bigger. In the same amount of time, man went from ape to moron?
The second problem is this.
Why isn't there another species like man? Look at what man has achieved (and please don't come back with a glib answer like war etc). We have language, we build things, we research things, we build better things etc. What other animal on the planet does that?
There aren't even any subsets of man. There are 3 types of human (caucasoid, negroid and mongoloids) and we're all about equal. Surely, with evolution we should have some sub sets of nearly humans who are doing their best? Or are they chavs? I forget.
Just seems to me that evolution is the best we've come up with "so far". What concerns me is that we are 19th century by fixating on a single theory and dismissing every other theory at an instant, because it offends the "one" theory we are happy with.
tinman0 said:
Why isn't there another species like man? Look at what man has achieved (and please don't come back with a glib answer like war etc). We have language, we build things, we research things, we build better things etc. What other animal on the planet does that?
Just saw this on the local news site...http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/2286902/Humans-noth...
tinman0 said:
sstein said:
1) It doesn't explain the origin of life. --- Well he's right it doesn't, that would be abiogenesis. Saying that evolution is not a valid theory because it doesn't explain a very different set of events is akin to saying that Pythagoras theorem isn't a valid way describe right angled triangles because it doesn't explain fluid dynamics in a vacuum.
I have two problems with evolution. 1 is time scales.For instance, a little horse (about the size of a dog) became a big horse (like we have today) over 300m years. Yeah, not exactly a great advance since the earth is 4bn years old or so. 10% of the earths time was taken with the horse becoming bigger. In the same amount of time, man went from ape to moron?
The reason life is a relatively recent phenomenon on the planet is because the conditions weren't suitable to sustain life for most of the planets life. The period when life really exploded is known as the Cambrian Explosion. This was a time when the earth was oxygen rich, if a species evolved that had a mutation which made it utilise oxygen then it would have an evolutionary advantage (remember evolution is reproduction with variation / mutation and enviromental attrition).
So, we have organisms which can use this oxygen rich environment to their benefit and they flourish, especially multi-cellular life.
tinman0 said:
The second problem is this.
Why isn't there another species like man? Look at what man has achieved (and please don't come back with a glib answer like war etc). We have language, we build things, we research things, we build better things etc. What other animal on the planet does that?
There aren't even any subsets of man. There are 3 types of human (caucasoid, negroid and mongoloids) and we're all about equal. Surely, with evolution we should have some sub sets of nearly humans who are doing their best? Or are they chavs? I forget.
Why isn't there another species like man? Look at what man has achieved (and please don't come back with a glib answer like war etc). We have language, we build things, we research things, we build better things etc. What other animal on the planet does that?
There aren't even any subsets of man. There are 3 types of human (caucasoid, negroid and mongoloids) and we're all about equal. Surely, with evolution we should have some sub sets of nearly humans who are doing their best? Or are they chavs? I forget.
As a side point,
There are thousands of fossils of "near-man (nearer man than little horse or big horse, what was that all about ? confused)".
Almost 4,000 hominid individuals.
159 Homo Erectus invidividuals
90 Australopithecus robustus,
150 Australopithecus afarensis
500 Neanderthals
And stuff in between.
Where do you fit into your categories of caucasoid, negroid or mongoloid ?
Of course there will be gaps... some of those gaps post on here 
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
tinman0 said:
Just seems to me that evolution is the best we've come up with "so far". What concerns me is that we are 19th century by fixating on a single theory and dismissing every other theory at an instant, because it offends the "one" theory we are happy with.
Evolution doesn't have a goal, everything isn't aiming towards man. We are just as evolved as a snail. The random mutations that occurred during reproduction introduced traits that allowed us to survive and pass on those traits. The same goes for the snail, it survive. It got it right 
Evolution isn't just a theory we are happy with until something else comes along. All the advances we have made since Darwin from DNA, understanding the cell, biology, endogenous retrovirus, genome, chemistry, fossils and on and on and on, and they ALL tie back into evolution.
Conflicting theories will be given their time in the sun to be analyzed and scrutinized by scientists and academics in the peer-review arena. This has been going on for decades since Darwin, and will continue to go on as long as the scientific method is followed. Nothing has came along yet which even puts a chink in the armour of evolution. Certainly not idiotic creationist theories based on flawed pseudo-science.
It isn't sufficient for someone to say a theory isn't valid because they can't comprehend, or are too lazy to go and learn and understand, the overwhelming body of evidence from many different fields of science. Understand how it links together and how it ties in and supports evolution theory.
Valid criticisms and proposals grounded in science and understanding which aim to further our knowledge will be heard and given a fair hearing. Criticism based in ignorance will not, and rightly so.
How Evolution Works by DonExodus :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtIQvkQWTZY&fea...
-
Stuart
Edited by sstein on Tuesday 24th March 01:43
10 Pence Short said:
I suppose living in such a young country that's grown so fast makes you question how anything can be more than 10,000 years old.
Says me sitting in a house older than pretty much every property in the entire US.
Oi. Another young country here, and we just don't give a stuff. As long as the beer is cold and we have access to a decent V8 all is well in the world. Says me sitting in a house older than pretty much every property in the entire US.
What happens when you get founded by decent criminal types rather than religous nutters.
Colonial said:
10 Pence Short said:
I suppose living in such a young country that's grown so fast makes you question how anything can be more than 10,000 years old.
Says me sitting in a house older than pretty much every property in the entire US.
Oi. Another young country here, and we just don't give a stuff. As long as the beer is cold and we have access to a decent V8 all is well in the world. Says me sitting in a house older than pretty much every property in the entire US.
What happens when you get founded by decent criminal types rather than religous nutters.
AJS- said:
How come humans don't turn into monkeys anymore?
I think the one massive evolutionary advantage we have come up with is communication which is sufficient to pass the knowledge of one generation on to the next. Chimps use tools, many animals warn each other of dangers, some micro organisms farm other organisms for food, yet none pass on their knowledge as building blocks to others.
If you look at any of the great apes they really aren't that far behind us in many ways, the key difference is that they approach something like a door as entirely new with no point of reference, and it is, understandably, mind boggling. A human on the other hand is able to use doors, machinery and computers by building on what he has learned from older humans.
I may be wrong, but I imagine the big difference would be in our thumbs and fingers no ?I think the one massive evolutionary advantage we have come up with is communication which is sufficient to pass the knowledge of one generation on to the next. Chimps use tools, many animals warn each other of dangers, some micro organisms farm other organisms for food, yet none pass on their knowledge as building blocks to others.
If you look at any of the great apes they really aren't that far behind us in many ways, the key difference is that they approach something like a door as entirely new with no point of reference, and it is, understandably, mind boggling. A human on the other hand is able to use doors, machinery and computers by building on what he has learned from older humans.
I think we have a lot more dexterity in our thumbs and a better grip, so you could have an ape that is super intelligent, but it is never going to have the grip and accuracy to be able to utilise tools effectively ?
Or am I way wrong ? And really it was hiring chimps to build cars that was Rovers ultimate demise ?
-
Stuart
s2art said:
Colonial said:
10 Pence Short said:
I suppose living in such a young country that's grown so fast makes you question how anything can be more than 10,000 years old.
Says me sitting in a house older than pretty much every property in the entire US.
Oi. Another young country here, and we just don't give a stuff. As long as the beer is cold and we have access to a decent V8 all is well in the world. Says me sitting in a house older than pretty much every property in the entire US.
What happens when you get founded by decent criminal types rather than religous nutters.
tuglet said:
I ordered the Tree of Life poster from the BBC web site; it arrived on Saturday. I stuck it on the kitchen wall and my ten year old daughter asked what it was. I did my best to explain the process of evolution, and who Charles Darwin was. When I had finished, she thought for a while before saying simply, "Does that mean there's no god?"
Smart kid you have there Tuggers! She's bang on the money!Texas is 696,241 km2. It is larger than France and Austria combined. Is it not safe to assume that in that sized place there are a few nuts afoot? He may be the head of the Texas state board. However, Texas has 255 counties, therefore 255 independent school districts. State boards have little influence on local schools, they are controled by local folks. Now, again, in a state the size of two combined European countries, cannot one nut in an official position exist? Just look how many are in leadership positions of whole nations in Europe.
ETA: Be aware that most, not some, most Christians here believe in some form of evolution and have no doubt that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. Don't suppose that all of us are of one mold and the same as this nut.
ETA: Be aware that most, not some, most Christians here believe in some form of evolution and have no doubt that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. Don't suppose that all of us are of one mold and the same as this nut.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 24th March 01:50
It is interesting the amount of belief (maybe faith) someone will have in something, like say evolution, or creation without checking out the facts. (obviously not meaning the majority of PHers!)
I totally agree with the statement that evolution is about the variations of life... not the origin of it.
So why then do people always put evolution as opposite, or disproving, creation? they are talking about different things (kind of)
Personally, i believe in creation.. but there are aspects of evolution (what i know of it) that i agree with. Does that make me a bad christian? i dont think so.
Back on the original topic, is it just me or is it a bit wrong that we can 'vote' what to teach as science? If thats the case, and enough people still beleive the world is flat and supported by a giant turtle.... will that be taught in schools?
I totally agree with the statement that evolution is about the variations of life... not the origin of it.
So why then do people always put evolution as opposite, or disproving, creation? they are talking about different things (kind of)
Personally, i believe in creation.. but there are aspects of evolution (what i know of it) that i agree with. Does that make me a bad christian? i dont think so.
Back on the original topic, is it just me or is it a bit wrong that we can 'vote' what to teach as science? If thats the case, and enough people still beleive the world is flat and supported by a giant turtle.... will that be taught in schools?
Edited by ben_reza on Tuesday 24th March 09:06
Jimbeaux said:
ETA: Be aware that most, not some, most Christians here believe in some form of evolution and have no doubt that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. Don't suppose that all of us are of one mold and the same as this nut.
There was one of them documentaries a few years ago with scientists who were quite religious but also able to accept evolution, big band etc and worked in the fields examining them. Refreshing but not to worry, I know what you mean and I mean what I said earlier. There are a few that turn their backs on the process that has led to say the theory of evolution and put forward a biased view but it will attract a lot of uninformed followers and some on the creation side do come across as loons. I mean, dinosaurs living with humans....Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 24th March 01:50
jmorgan said:
Jimbeaux said:
ETA: Be aware that most, not some, most Christians here believe in some form of evolution and have no doubt that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. Don't suppose that all of us are of one mold and the same as this nut.
There was one of them documentaries a few years ago with scientists who were quite religious but also able to accept evolution, big band etc and worked in the fields examining them. Refreshing but not to worry, I know what you mean and I mean what I said earlier. There are a few that turn their backs on the process that has led to say the theory of evolution and put forward a biased view but it will attract a lot of uninformed followers and some on the creation side do come across as loons. I mean, dinosaurs living with humans....Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 24th March 01:50
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff