A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
correct me if i am wrong but don't some creationists (i am unsure how many) believe in evolution? basically doesn't this only apply to the people who believe the earth is roughly 10,000 years old? granted there are quite a few people like this, but it's my understanding you can believe some kind of god had a part in creating the universe as well as evolution.no you're right i think but idk from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE if nothing else, most people who identify themselves as creationists are the kind who think of evolution as creationism as mutual exclusives. maybe it's different with others though!
correct me if i am wrong but don't some creationists (i am unsure how many) believe in evolution? basically doesn't this only apply to the people who believe the earth is roughly 10,000 years old? granted there are quite a few people like this, but it's my understanding you can believe some kind of god had a part in creating the universe as well as evolution.
Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science.
Obviously evolution exists in some form or another, but it remains to be seen if a simple life form like a bacterium can actually become a full grown animal. =)
iirc ID is just the belief that the universe was created by an intelligent being. i'm probably wrong, though!oh yeah, this makes sense then. the people I know of who support ID and call themselves scientists don't deny that evolution can happen, they just think a lot of facets of life were designed at some point. like there's a lot of really complex shit in simple lifeforms that we can't explain, but to go ahead and assume it implies design is such a weird thing for a scientist to do, you basically destroy your sci-cred
edit: oh nvm haha
it's basically creationism just without the specific god reference
Science != fact. I mean, you COULD just state facts about research on evolution AND creationism.
Science != fact. I mean, you COULD just state facts about research on evolution AND creationism.
Science != fact. I mean, you COULD just state facts about research on evolution AND creationism.
Science != fact. I mean, you COULD just state facts about research on evolution AND creationism.
Science != fact. I mean, you COULD just state facts about research on evolution AND creationism.
School books are horribly anti-creationistic as well. I mean, you COULD just state facts about research on evolution AND creationism.
Yea, you can't believe in creationism and evolution. But you can believe in evolution and religion.
Instead of dedicated, what, one page to creationism and every 5 sentences say that it's wrong? I mean wtf, make it neutral. *flashbacks of WWII Germany propaganda*btw i completely missed this the first time around so i just want to say thank you twin matrix................thank you
so i guess the true creationism is total rejection of evolution! i know a ton of people who kind of toe the line with "i believe god created evolution" or something
only a blind fool would go "lol natural selection birds existed since the beginning of time!"
Your bullshit religion is not a science. Therefore, it should NOT be taught to children as such.Man, chill out. Of course religion isn't a science since it can't be proven, and anybody who says otherwise is an idiot. So no, it shouldn't be taught in schools. But you don't need to go and attack somebody else's beliefs, however ridiculous they may seem, just because you disagree with them.
The dent is, we have evidence that evolution exists. There is no evidence AT ALL for ID.That's exactly why it's a belief, and why it shouldn't be taught in schools. People are entitled to believe whatever the hell they want until there's proof that stands against it, in which case it's just ignorance. There's nothing to disprove most religions, so people are entitled to believe them.
I have no doubts that evolution and whatnot were part of it. There's too much evidence to say that evolution is fake, but I also find it hard to believe that there was no form of intelligence behind the design of such and absolutely amazing universe.Agreed. (I never said I didn't believe in evolution? @_@)
- Where did I say I hate black people? Oh, right, apparently everyone knows things about me that I haven't even said, nor know myself. Okay, sorry.
Why aren't there variations to humans, like intelligent humans with large arms and hands? Or jaws? Or whatever?Because that wasn't an adaptive trait. Think of natural selection as a kind of sift with selective pressures like environment, predation, etc, chiseling away at a population capable of mutation and reproduction. Evolution is not UPWARDS MOBILITY, with a specific target in mind, but a blind sift.
Where did I say I hate black people? Oh, right, apparently everyone knows things about me that I haven't even said, nor know myself. Okay, sorry.http://www.gamingw.net/forums/index.php?topic=71972%20.msg1315625#msg1315625
wtf
being ok with/wanting to have/agreeing to have sex != rape
you just lost all your respect thx
but then again rap and black people scociety seems to be all about raping women and drugs so it doesnt surprise (assuming from your username you're one)
*leaves topic*
You bitched and moaned about there being too many black people in Barkley.Oh really? Quote me then. If you can't, it's wrong.
We aren't the only intelligent beings on the planet...animals have ways of communication, brain cells, intelligence, and such too.Are you saying that animals are even remotely as intelligent as humans, capable of learning and freedom of deciding things against survival nature?
Plus there was "variations" of humans, it's called the Neanderthals.There aren't really big variations to humans. The variations are more in a little bit longer arms, less/more brains, etc.
Because that wasn't an adaptive trait. Think of natural selection as a kind of sift with selective pressures like environment, predation, etc, chiseling away at a population capable of mutation and reproduction. Evolution is not UPWARDS MOBILITY, with a specific target in mind, but a blind sift.I know what natural selection is. ^_^ And it was only an example. Think of any trait that would have helped humans but we don't have it. Why don't we have them? Humans with large hands could catch prey easier, which makes them survive more and produce more children, thus slowly evolving into these humans with large hands. Also, it's pretty random that humans are all over the place without showing big variations. The Dawson birds showed pretty big variations in wings and beaks. With all the rivers and oceans that humans crossed, you'd think that the natural barriers would slowly evolve the two seperated groups of humans into different species. But nope. Also, didn't we never find an actual human-ape fossils, and more only very humanish fossils OR very apish fossils? I could be entirely wrong on that, but I thought there was a gap of fossils. Like the pterodactyl (sp?) being a bird/reptillian.
That there is gravity on earth doesn't mean there's gravity on other planets.
Also, didn't we never find an actual human-ape fossils, and more only very humanish fossils OR very apish fossils?
Are you saying that animals are even remotely as intelligent as humans, capable of learning and freedom of deciding things against survival nature?
There aren't really big variations to humans. The variations are more in a little bit longer arms, less/more brains, etc.
That there is gravity on earth doesn't mean there's gravity on other planets.
@thecatamites: Because we all know the moon has as much gravity as the earth, of course. *sigh*
- With "science != fact", I meant that proving that A is true, it doesn't automatically mean B is true. That there is gravity on earth doesn't mean there's gravity on other planets.Actually it does.
Why aren't there variations to humansThere are. Asian, black people, 'dem jews, bad luck, etc.
Think of any trait that would have helped humans but we don't have it. Why don't we have them? Why don't we have them?Because we haven't evolved them - yet - or it's not physically possible.
Also, it's pretty random that humans are all over the place without showing big variations.Humans aren't isolated anymore. People off all nationalities are running around all over the world, screwing people. We WERE isolated lots of years ago, and then we DID evolve different species, but only one survived.
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
Courtesy of my flatmate.
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
Actually it does.
There are. Asian, black people, 'dem jews, bad luck, etc.
Because we haven't evolved them - yet - or it's not physically possible.
Humans aren't isolated anymore. People off all nationalities are running around all over the world, screwing people. We WERE isolated lots of years ago, and then we DID evolve different species, but only one survived.
@cata: Hey, finally a post with content! Are you saying that if the earth has gravity, it automatically means all planets have gravity? NOW we know that they do. But if we didn't, then you couldn't make that assumption. Heck, there are a 1001 reasons why the earth could have gravity and not other plantes. Maybe the position of the earth between the sun and the stars gives it gravity. Maybe it's the moon circling around the earth that gives it gravity. We now know that it's because of the large mass that the earth has, but if we didn't know that you CAN'T MAKE THE ASSUMPTION all planets have gravity. You need to do research first. That was my point.
@cata: Hey, finally a post with content! Are you saying that if the earth has gravity, it automatically means all planets have gravity? NOW we know that they do. But if we didn't, then you couldn't make that assumption. Heck, there are a 1001 reasons why the earth could have gravity and not other plantes. Maybe the position of the earth between the sun and the stars gives it gravity. Maybe it's the moon circling around the earth that gives it gravity. We now know that it's because of the large mass that the earth has, but if we didn't know that you CAN'T MAKE THE ASSUMPTION all planets have gravity. You need to do research first. That was my point.
All planets have cores (because all planets have gravitational fields), etcccc.
You can argue what you said, but it's all pretty much outdated thinking from the 4th century BC that got refuted pretty easily once we discovered that, despite our egos, no, we were not at the center of the universe.
This you can't know for sure, one of them could be hollow in the middle and it would still have gravity because it has mass
Are you saying that animals are even remotely as intelligent as humans, capable of learning and freedom of deciding things against survival nature?monkeys use tools to help with eating wait what?
I don't know what to say about the article. I thought they already had observed "evolution" with all those antibiotic resistant bacteria, but now that they really saw it nobody can prove they're wrong.
Even if it's hollow it's still a core.Okay this is sort of a serious question but I kind of would like to know how a non-gaseous planet could have a completely hollow core. Wouldn't the gravitational pull suck at least some of the solid matter in until the planet compacted itself into a smaller, denser planet?
Maybe not a molten core like Earth, but it's still a core.
edit:
the center of the universe is my d*ck everything revolves around it......
newpick up line...."hey baby...how would you like to get f*cked by the thing the universe revolves around...??"
Basically:
Microevolution = real (ie. different breeds of dogs)
Macroevolution = debatable (ie bacteria eventually to human)
Okay this is sort of a serious question but I kind of would like to know how a non-gaseous planet could have a completely hollow core. Wouldn't the gravitational pull suck at least some of the solid matter in until the planet compacted itself into a smaller, denser planet?
I mean I'm probably wrong but I just want to know.
its only debatablle if you have never taken a biology course and(or read a textbook in your life. sure it is a theory but it is as debatable as gravity because gravity is also a theory.Yes this is true. I basically meant that not many people will debate over microevolution but people will debate over macro.
So for the first time, evolution on a major scale has been observed and confirmed in a lab environment. This kind of blows a huge hole in the creationism arguments! So yeah, discuss how silly creationists must feel now and how cool this is!Creationists don't base their position on reason and logic, so they aren't feeling silly
There isn't really much to "blindfoldely believe" in science. Science is about making conclusions and hypothesis based on observation and logic. If further observation is made, old theories are rejected or corrected.
Because of this, science is always changing.
In short: Science doesn't even "believe" in itself. Science is about doubt, not about belief.
We could say "believing" in science is the exact opposite of "blindly believing" in anything, because "believing" in science pretty much means accepting you don't know anything, and accepting that everything you think you know could eventually be found to be untrue.
Because we all know the moon has as much gravity as the earth, of course. *sigh*what
:gay:
:goose: :goose: :snorlax: :goose: :goose:
Are you saying that animals are even remotely as intelligent as humans, capable of learning and freedom of deciding things against survival nature?
It would seem . . . There is a sort of tendency in evolution, wouldn't you say? If you start with those ultrasimple critters in the ancient seas and move up step by step to everything we see here now--and beyond--then you have to observe a tendency toward . . . complexity. And toward self-awareness and intelligence. Wouldn't you agree?
That is, all sorts of creatures on this planet appear to be on the verge of attaining that self-awareness and intelligence. So it's definitely not just humans that the gods are after. We were never meant to be the only players on this stage. Apparently the gods intend this planet to be a garden filled with creatures that are self-aware and intelligent.
I believe that one of the objects of most debate in the process of evolution is to define what exaclty are the events that determine the prevalence of one genetic trait over other, and when is that evolution leads to developement rather than mere conditioning.... To be honest I haven't been reading a lot about it since I left school so Idk if anything has been agreed but still, I believe these are the most interesting facets of the evolution theory.go back to school
30,000 generations to metabolise citrate, how long to get rid of an appendix?
- This discovery about bacterium does not prove that evolution created everything there is today. Can you actually think of a reason/argument why we evolved into the only intelligent beings, instead of whopping my posts around? Why aren't there variations to humans, like intelligent humans with large arms and hands? Or jaws? Or whatever? Surely that would help that species survive natural selection. If the chance that only ONE species evolves into intelligent beings exists, then the chance of humans evolving into stronger beings surely exist too.One annoyed biologist rant coming up!
"well if evolution is true why do xxx have xxx useless abilities?"
It is still there because it's absence is not really an advantage
my point was 30,000 generations is a really really long time. the appendix used to digest cellulose or something.
yeah my point was only 30,000 generations is a really long time i don't care about the appendix, substitute it for any other trait humans have evolved
clothing has made hair unnecessary :fogetgasp:
you are outrageously stupid.
no fucking kidding, you might be the dumbest person.
yeah my point was only 30,000 generations is a really long time i don't care about the appendix, substitute it for any other trait humans have evolved
You guys should check out this new M Night Shamalamadong movie The Happening (http://io9.com/5016361/the-happening-is-the-biggest-intelligent-design-movie-of-the-year). It's the first movie about Intelligent Design. Yay.
It's a long time but only in your point of view so I don't get your point
iirc ID is just the belief that the universe was created by an intelligent being. i'm probably wrong, though!
edit: oh nvm haha
it's basically creationism just without the specific god reference
gj ruining this movie marcus. not a fan?
Oh hey, I hate missing a chance to point out that someone has a different conclusion than me and is their for stupid.
Creationism = Everything made by god in a perfect way. They don't say "evolution" is impossible. They just state that this "evolution" is the result of degeneration as a result of a sinfull world. Really, I read some books, which scientificly prooves the fact that creationism is true, pretty interesting if you ask me. Basicly every piece of evidence they found for evolution can be counter-explained to proove creationism (please don't debate this last argument if you haven't read any book about it).What book is this? Any book that can somehow scientifically prove creationism must be pretty impressive!
Oh hey, I hate missing a chance to point out that someone has a different conclusion than me and is their for stupid.
SO, from the power confirmed in the FeedBack section, I will join in this legal "tuff love"
Yeah man, you're a fucking idiot, do you eat bull-shit for breakfest or do you just breathe it in 24/7? Dipshit.
hey guess what.
i have proof that creationisms is for real.
http://www.venganza.org/ suck on that, EVOLutionaries.
ok, assuming a human generation lasts 12 years that's 360,000 years. i guess earlier forms of humans could become viable earlier but it's still a really really long time, and that's for one trait.
how long have we been here??????
fsm is dumber than creationism
Well what if that one trait existed 120.000 years ago but it doesn't right now? Also 360.000 years is a really short period if you consider that the Dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years ago
If early man didn't have mental illness, we wouldn't have religion or god. They created god and religion because they heard voices in their heads.I always thought religion was a way for people to understand the ways of nature at first :fogetmmh:
What.
i just want to ask the two of you if you actually understand what science really is, and what the term represents
have you ever experienced or performed real scientific research
because
i honestly believe that you guys are pulling shit out of your ass
and i am in a position to say this
being an individual who worked full time in a microbiology lab for nearly nine months
seriously
you guys really really really really dont have any idea what you're talking about
at all
so please
please
educate yourselves
you are embarrassing yourselves
also twin matrix your rhetoric is horrible
like you really just dont know what it takes to SAY WHAT YOU MEAN AND MAKE A FUCKING POINT
go back to schoolWhy should I, sorry?
80% of the times I've obtained results very different from what I "should", and you know why?
because you fucked the experiment up?To be honest I'm quite a careful scientist. So either huge errors from the apparatus, or I'm dumb shit.
Basicly every piece of evidence they found for evolution can be counter-explained to proove creationism (please don't debate this last argument if you haven't read any book about it).Could you give a few examples of what is mentioned?
Evolution = There was no life. Life developed in a great chemical soup and evolution caused the life of today without any devine power.Evolution doesn't state this at all. Evolution is the increase of appearance of genes, and doesn't tell of abiogenesis. I am an advocate of evolution, but not Intelligent Design. Though, the two aren't mutually exclusive, just look at the Roman Catholic Church which accepts Evolution.
ID = Basicly both of them together. Soms structures in organisms (eyes, brains) are to complex to have developed without a "blueprint". Therefor it's basicly the evolution theory, but this "evolution" is directed by a higher power, which steers the development and has certain blueprints for the organisms.I saw a video on youtube of the famous Evolutionary Biologist, Richard Dawkins. Basically, he explained how the eye came to be. It was rather interesting how he explained it, like the eye started as a group of photosensitive cells and moved on from there. I haven't done much research on the Brain, but I don't believe in any sort of guided process at all.
Creationism = Everything made by god in a perfect way. They don't say "evolution" is impossible. They just state that this "evolution" is the result of degeneration as a result of a sinfull world. Really, I read some books, which scientificly prooves the fact that creationism is true, pretty interesting if you ask me. Basicly every piece of evidence they found for evolution can be counter-explained to proove creationism (please don't debate this last argument if you haven't read any book about it).
Evolution = There was no life. Life developed in a great chemical soup and evolution caused the life of today without any devine power.
ID = Basicly both of them together. Soms structures in organisms (eyes, brains) are to complex to have developed without a "blueprint". Therefor it's basicly the evolution theory, but this "evolution" is directed by a higher power, which steers the development and has certain blueprints for the organisms.
Edit: It seems that I didn't read all the posts and had to find out that this was basicly explained allready.
cre·a·tion·ism Audio Help /kriˈeɪʃəˌnɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.
Really, I read some books, which scientificly prooves the fact that creationism is true, pretty interesting if you ask me. Basicly every piece of evidence they found for evolution can be counter-explained to proove creationism (please don't debate this last argument if you haven't read any book about it).
dude what are you talking about? a vast number of early religions had sea gods and forest gods and basically NATURE RELATED gods because they hoped to harness the power of nature. Even religions where they don't pray to elements of nature often still have mythical creatures OF FIRE or some shit
i.e. judaism isnt even close to being an "early" religion.
To be honest I'm quite a careful scientist. So either huge errors from the apparatus, or I'm dumb shit.
But seriously, like for the simplest 1st year experiment of finding g through a rigid pendulum, I spend 2 whole afternoons and I did the whole measurements 4 times and I kept on getting 10. somthing with an accuracy of about 0.01%. So I figured out that either there was a huge magnetic field under the lab or dunno... gravity is stronger in the lab?
What book is this? Any book that can somehow scientifically prove creationism must be pretty impressive!
I am certainly not a biologist. But I am certainly a physisist and a philosopher (or at least close to that) because that's what I study.
correct me if i am wrong but don't some creationists (i am unsure how many) believe in evolution?It's quite possible to be a strong believer in christianity and yet also believe in evolution. Desmond Tutu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu) is one example. He's referred to the books of Genesis as "poetry", as opposed to an accurate description of events.
Unless you're Dutch it won't help you much. But let me see if I can find something on the Internet with similair content.
Though, I must say, that if somebody wants to proove something in general, they just show you the scientific facts that support it. Leaving the counter-facts alone, hoping that people are stupid enough to just go along with it.
Ok, found it. I didn't read it totally through, but I think this is pretty similair.
http://www.creationism.org/genesis.htm
There are no fossils which prove any transitional life forms have ever come about through "natural selection" or otherwise. The third type of evolution is what is believed and preached to our children in the public schools today, but to the best of my understanding there is no scientific evidence to support its tenets. Regardless of my individual beliefs however I hope that you can glean from the evidence and ideas which are related in this report.should let you know that this whole thing is kinda, well, completely bullshit. I mean, firstly, there are hundreds of transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html). Secondly, even if there weren't, then stuff like embryology, comparative anatomy, and biogeography still back up evolution.
One thing that most average people don’t know is how wildly the radio-active dates can fluctuate within different samples of the exact same specimen.Actually, most claims that carbon dating is inaccurate are based on the idea that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has changed over the decades. While these changes have occured, they're already accounted for by means of comparison with tree-rings. Note how no evidence whatsoever was given to back up claims of variation.
Another fact that the highly vaunted geologic column (as drawn by artists) is often stacked wrong, there are gaps, often layers lie in "the wrong order" or even upside down.Leaving aside the fact that I'm not sure how a layer of rock can be upside down, I have no idea what he's basing this claim on since he offers no evidence or citations whatsoever. He talks about how the geologic column is best explained by the flood, which is wrong for a whole bunch of reasons, but this link explains most: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
Is it necessarily religious (but not scientific) to include God in geologic strata interpretation?Is this a trick question? Of course it's religious! And it pretty much pisses all over the scientific method to just say 'god done it' without any kind of further explanation, so it's not scientific either.
There is significant evidence that the Earth’s climate used to be much more uniform and comfortably warmer than today. This is in keeping with the Bible’s record in Genesis. It is not in keeping with modern evolutionary beliefs.How does this contradict evolution?
Ask any diehard evolutionist who adamantly insists that there was not a global flood: "Where did coal and oil come from?, by what process were they created?" They have no logical answer.Haha, what? Did I dream all those high-school geography classes where we learned where fossil fuels came from? http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0015289.html
Discrete pockets of preserved former life, separated by wide layers of muck and rock. Then nothing grew there for millions of years?, then "bam" a burst of stored life, then nothing for millions more years, then another concentrated coal or oil pocket. A million years is a long time. Where you live can you imagine that nothing grew there for one million or more years?Oil flows to the surface, where it'd biodegraded by bacteria. The 'pockets of preserved former life' occur when oil seeps upward through porous rock and collects underneath an impermeable 'cap' rock. This information was brought to you, yet again, by a high-school geography textbook.
Peat is partially decomposed and shows damage from massive root penetration. But coal, when scientifically incinerated to determine its BTU rating or when looked at under a microscope - isn’t and doesn’t, i.e. peat and coal are not 2 different stages of the same process.Coal is peat that's been physically and chemically altered by stuff like compaction, bacterial decay, and heat. I have no idea what he's talking about, or what the BTU rating has to do with it (because coal has been chemically altered from peat, with many altered complex carbons, so it produces a different amount of energy when burned).
While the evolutionist postulates that each subsequent layer down indicates a different age or episode recorded in that region and then believes millions of years of this or that, the creationist postulates that these same sedimentary layers altogether record a singular recent violent catastrophic flood. According to the Bible the Flood lasted about one year.Take that, geochronology!
Did this happen about 4,400 years ago (as per Biblical chronology)?; or are we advanced primates with a long illiterate history of swinging from trees, scratching and picking lice off of each other, and then for whatever reason(?) inexplicably growing and developing into civilization, beginning slightly over 4,000 years ago? Hmmm, that timing works out pretty closely, doesn’t it? A Flood about 4,400 years ago; then new civilizations arising around 4,000 years ago.Once again, this only makes sense if you completely ignore paleontology in all it's forms. Also, the growth of civilisation was a pretty damn long process and not just an event that happened 4000 years ago! Jesus, why am I even bothering to debate this stuff?
According to the theory of evolution, as commonly believed today, our ancestors slowly became smarter, invented the wheel, learned to control fire, and only recently got pretty good at making clipper ships and jumbo jets. The creationist though could point to an ancient world from before the Flood, with about 1600 years of history and possible exploration.... Uh, evolution doesn't claim anything like that. No-one's claiming anything like that. Does this guy even know what evolution is, because he's pretty much using it interchangeably with science as a whole!
Sure I understand that they probably found the sea and sun etc to be cool (because they give you free food) but I don't think that was the reason why they worshipped them and invented their gods. What I mean is, the normal, regular people, know such things exist but don't really care about it, who decides to start offering virgins for sacrifice is probably someone like Gene Ray (the time cube guy). And I don't think mental "illnesses" are something that appeared yesterday. This is so obvious I bet a real anthropologist has a theory exactly like this.
I am ignoring 99% of this topic.
It's quite possible to be a strong believer in christianity and yet also believe in evolution. Desmond Tutu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu) is one example. He's referred to the books of Genesis as "poetry", as opposed to an accurate description of events.
80% of the times I've obtained results very different from what I "should", and you know why?
Jesus christ. Have you ever even studied Egyptian or even GREEK mythology? What the hell do you think Ra and Poseidon were for?
jesus christ climbtree you are either dumb as hell or a troll
life started 4 billions years ago, there was plenty of time for humans to evolve out of prokaryotic bacterias,
human beings appeared around 200k years ago but they already lacked a functional appendix so humans didnt loose the appendix because they already didnt have it.
and evolution doesnt works with isolated traits and if you think that you should crack open a biology book. evolution works by random mutations and how those mutations help certain organisms to survive better and reproduce. so multiple mutations may be selected simultaneously and therefore its not like one thing develops at a time i.e. "heh how much time you need to develop a penis and then an eye....."
i guess a lot of them would overlapor something.
[...]i'm a bit iffy with dinosaurs as well though so maybe i'm just a loon
shut up i already covered both your points and i already said i didn't care about the appendix, only that 30,000 generations is a really long time. notice how the only new trait in the bacteria was citrate metabolization though (30,000 generations for that, maybe only another 10k for a flagellum or something).
furthermore it's mostly flintstones fans and fundamentalists that believe dinosaurs and humans lived together. and the tin lids (but they were flintstones fans).
So basically, humans lived in caves, suffered horrible diseases, experienced agonizing deaths, and had very low life expectancy for that amount of time until one day god decides to show up with Jesus Christ on the cross.This is not true. The tribal peoples in the world who still live the way they had for thousands of years (hunter-gathers) don't suffer horrible diseases, agonizing deaths and low life expectancy. Unless that was a joke.
This is not true. The tribal peoples in the world who still live the way they had for thousands of years (hunter-gathers) don't suffer horrible diseases, agonizing deaths and low life expectancy. Unless that was a joke.
the article wasn't talking about natural selection causing the bacteria to evolve but simply chance anyway, so environmental pressures are moot.
likewise i don't think the humanoid population would have been big enough to support rapid changes anyway
Sorry that I'm replying to this so late, but the fact that you are doing an experiment and EXPECTING specific results shows that you're a poor scientist. The very POINT of an experiment is to get the result, if you already have a result in your head, why are you doing the experiment?Well, the reason we perform experiments in University is to develope experimental skills rather than to discover the value of a certain constant. The reason why we expect certain results is because we need to learn to identify sources of systematic errors, and the reason we repeat an experiment a lot if we don't get the expected result, is so that we minimize the random error so that we can make sure that the source of error is mainly systematic.
My physics teacher told us this each and every day of class. We are never to enter an experiment with some preformed idea of how it is going to go, because then when we get wildly different results we get confused and do it over and over again, trying to get the 'right' results, which wastes our time and gets us a bad grade for handing in a late lab.
That's your problem, your instrument is inaccurate and your sample size is too small, which makes your first statement falseMy sample size was certainly not too small for any experiment. I made sure that the precision was high by repeating the measurements loads of times. lol. And how can you tell that my error came from the inaccuracy of my instruments? Sorry mate but that's a ridiculous statement... it could have been anything.
Well some of them do, look at those people in africaIt depends what people. Not the Mbuti of the African rainforest. Lots of people like the Bushmen, for example got fucked when settlers came and shit.
This is not true. The tribal peoples in the world who still live the way they had for thousands of years (hunter-gathers) don't suffer horrible diseases, agonizing deaths and low life expectancy. Unless that was a joke.Near the beginning of our species, yes. There is a difference between TRIBAL PEOPLES of the past few thousand years and people who lived during the infancy of our species. Life expectancy had to be around 20-30 years and infant mortality very high, during a time when nothing was known about micro-organisms. Humans lived in terror of volcanoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes, and probably died from them as well. You are right, there is evidence that the life expectancy of some tribes is about 50 which isn't obscenely low, but I am not talking about what in the context of EVOLUTIONARY TIME is only a few seconds.
But hey! this has nothing to do with the topic anymore so I'll ask something that I have been wondering (if someone minds answering):
Does thought and knowledge through time evolve, just like living beings do? or does it develope differently? because if it is the latter, then the future of humans would not depend on the common evolution (or would it?), meaning that the theories of evolution would at best tell us how we have come to be like what we are, but that's about it.... wouldn't it?
It depends what people. Not the Mbuti of the African rainforest. Lots of people like the Bushmen, for example got fucked when settlers came and shit.
Near the beginning of our species, yes. There is a difference between TRIBAL PEOPLES of the past few thousand years and people who lived during the infancy of our species. Life expectancy had to be around 20-30 years and infant mortality very high, during a time when nothing was known about micro-organisms. Humans lived in terror of volcanoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes, and probably died from them as well. You are right, there is evidence that the life expectancy of some tribes is about 50 which isn't obscenely low, but I am not talking about what in the context of EVOLUTIONARY TIME is only a few seconds.
Good god, you are completely missing my point.
Of course and now people don't die of volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis, because evolution made us immune to them
Does this experiment lead to conclusive evidence that the bacteria will become an entirely new species? As far as I can tell it gained a new trait, which is essentially micro evolution (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)? I believe that creationists biggest qualm is that man came from apes or something similar to that because it disputes the fact that man was created in God's image. What are some examples of intermediate fossil examples of preman?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils , near the bottom.
I believe that creationists biggest qualm is that man came from apes or something similar to thatWe have common ancestors, who ever said we came from apes? Many, many people have this mistaken mind set. Though, I do get your point. It's pretty tough to discard evolution, considering all the evidence that backs it up.
Does this experiment lead to conclusive evidence that the bacteria will become an entirely new species?
*clap clap clap*wow (Click to reveal)I have an interesting story to tell.
Back when I was still a Christian, I used to go to the local nondenominational church. One sunday, a minister who was studying to become a physics teacher was talking about how Christianity and science do not necessarily refute one another. He goes off on a slew of not-very-funny science jokes, wasting about an hour of our time (granted, this is what they do best) and finally arrives at his point. The topic of the Big Bang. He goes over several scientific theories as to how it arose (random particle collision, etc.) and contrasts it with creationism as presented by Genesis. He says something to the effect that Genesis does not refute creationism (a day to god is not necessarily 24 hours blah blah blah whatever -- he doesn't even mention why Genesis says BIRDS are created before LAND). Then he wastes more of our time, anecdotes about conversations with his scientist colleagues, etc. But here is how he ended:
"What would you RATHER believe? That our universe was created by some random particle collision? Or that an Intelligent Being set all this up to happen?" Noting the circumstances and how he presented his speech, he actually wanted us to think the latter.
I think that is the fundamental fallacy of religion at large. Religion is a lie, crafted in good nature, but nonetheless a lie to ourselves and our reason. It's just a convenience. Creationism and intelligent design, no -- they are not yet PROVEN ABSOLUTELY FALSE, so even the most diehard of scientists have to put faith in their own founding postulates. But faith on these grounds is far more reasonable than blind faith in religious dogma. This topic has thoroughly shown that evolution DOES EXIST. Where is the hardcore evidence that proves GOD EXISTS.
Ask yourself -- are you a Christian because you voluntarily made a reasonable choice to be one? Or are you a Christian simply because that's how you were brought up? Finally, what reasonable God would delight in your 'faith,' if you are of the latter?
We have common ancestors, who ever said we came from apes? Many, many people have this mistaken mind set. Though, I do get your point. It's pretty tough to discard evolution, considering all the evidence that backs it up.Modern apes and humans share ancestors that are ape-like, creationists however think that evolution is all about MONKEYS BECOMING MEN OUT OF THE BLUE which leads to hilarious assumptions like "Monkeys evolved to humans in millions of years? BUT MONKEYS DON'T LIVE FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS DUUUH"
None of which seem to apply to the bacteria at the moment. (There's a little biology lesson for you all.)Uh, yeah. That would be obvious, considering bacteria do not reproduce sexually*. I mean, the same can be said of fossils. How do you know fossil A is a different species from fossil B? You simply can't get them to prove they're different species anymore when they're dead. In these cases, it's back to the old 'do these two look the same to you' method. In this case specifically, the new emerged trait is radically different from anything the strain has come up with previously. Sizing this up, it's like a group of koalas starting to eat something other than eucalyptus leaves. When koalas that eat slightly different eucalyptus leaves are different species, what does this mean for the bacteria when he starts to metabolise something the rest of his strain can't?
enviromental rpessures have everything to with evolution dude. it is precisely because the cianide processing bacterias are able to survive and adapt to the enviroment that they breed.
holy shit does the Bible really say birds came before LAND
hahahaha
I think that is the fundamental fallacy of religion at large. Religion is a lie, crafted in good nature, but nonetheless a lie to ourselves and our reason. It's just a convenience. Creationism and intelligent design, no -- they are not yet PROVEN ABSOLUTELY FALSE, so even the most diehard of scientists have to put faith in their own founding postulates. But faith on these grounds is far more reasonable than blind faith in religious dogma. This topic has thoroughly shown that evolution DOES EXIST. Where is the hardcore evidence that proves GOD EXISTS.
Ask yourself -- are you a Christian because you voluntarily made a reasonable choice to be one? Or are you a Christian simply because that's how you were brought up? Finally, what reasonable God would delight in your 'faith,' if you are of the latter?
Sorry if this has already been brought up, but I didn't really feel like reading the whole thread.
I've never really been a die-heart on either side of this issue, I don't really know what the popular arguments are for either but to me this doesn't really change anything.
To me evolution is fact, organisms can mutate and evolve into other organisms, creating new species, etc, etc. However I don't see how evolution explains initial origin of anything. I'm one of those annoying people that don't understand the Big Bang or whatever, because how does something go bang when nothing exists prior?
Creationism says a higher being made things, but I think its stupid and ignorant to think every species that exists now has always and were all created.
So this new evidence gives evolution even more scientific proof, super, I think anyone claiming evolution doesn't occur in any sense is in denial and closed-minded. However this evidence still doesn't solve the origin problem, and I think creationism is a fine solution for that, but I'm spiritual and am okay believing that.
So, if any of you guys that love this issue to death have some arguments for either side over this I'd love to hear it.
They're both guesses and nobody knows which one is rightI suppose that a theory which has an overwhelming amount of evidence, is already observable in some form, is believed by many scientists, and makes a lot of sense otherwise is just a guess?
yes
Sorry if this has already been brought up, but I didn't really feel like reading the whole thread.
[...]
So, if any of you guys that love this issue to death have some arguments for either side over this I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about the "big bang". "Everything was nothing and then it exploded and became everything" makes as much sense as "The invisible ghost made the world in seven days"No, I think it makes more sense. Well, something had to exist forever, whether matter was in the form of energy or what not. Somehow, I believe energy or matter or something existed forever, but maybe manifested differently now. The Big Bang Theory has evidence backing it up, and starts to explain things from some sort of beginning. The Theology view suggests that things were created in their present form, instead of having a really long history, from very basic to more complex like today. It makes no sense to say something was placed here in it's current form by some sort of omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent entity, as opposed to suggesting that things were in a very basic form, and changed to what it is today. The very matter that makes us up existed over 13 billion years ago in some form or another.
"...I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be those of his own household"-jesus christ, the bible.
"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or hot. Since you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of my mouth." -someone, the bible.
i've always heard the lukewarm thing as I'D RATHER YOU WERE A CHRISTIAN OR A NON-CHRISTIAN
Ask yourself -- are you a Christian because you voluntarily made a reasonable choice to be one? Or are you a Christian simply because that's how you were brought up? Finally, what reasonable God would delight in your 'faith,' if you are of the latter?
what's the fun of having an imaginary friend whose needs are eternally unsatisfiable
i smiled and nodded my head at a tree the other day, that's good enough for me
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
I'm talking about the "big bang". "Everything was nothing and then it exploded and became everything" makes as much sense as "The invisible ghost made the world in seven days"Sure, let's dump it all on those silly botanists! It's not like they have anything better to do, like solving world hunger or protecting humanity from horrible diseases! Yeah, they'll certainly wouldn't mind explaining over and over again the principles of quantum physics to people on the level of retarded toddlers!
--
PS: and before someone asks how is this related to anything, Fish said that he thinks creationism is a fine solution for the "orign of the universe" question, but since it is a guess then I think everything else is an acceptable answer for that question too (because nobody really knows the answer)
Sure, let's dump it all on those silly botanists! It's not like they have anything better to do, like solving world hunger or protecting humanity from horrible diseases! Yeah, they'll certainly wouldn't mind explaining over and over again the principles of quantum physics to people on the level of retarded toddlers!
I'm sick and tired of every bloody fundie bothering us, and only us, with their petty little issues and expecting us to answer "and why does this book say it is when it's not huh???" like the scientific community has somehow designated evolutionary biologists as "people who take your shit". I know we must seem like omniscient gods to you, but really, we're not! Try asking mathematicians (http://xckd.com/435/), maybe they'll look up from their Riemann hypothesis for long enough to tell you why the sky is blue. Go to hell.