Evolution is boring, What does it mean to you ?

I offer this thread for the Evolutionist to express what evolution means to you ?

Besides it not offering much to humanity I would like to hear in users own words the implications of evolution... If one can not explain what their religion means to them then what good is it really ?

I would keep the preaching from both sides to a minimum... hence no links of other peoples words used to try to convince either party of facts that are really not their own.

So what does evolution really mean to you ?

when has evolution ever been seen since man arrived? wheres the missing link?

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I offer this thread for the Evolutionist

Evolutionist is a silly word. I've even made a thread about how silly it is.

to express what evolution means to you ?

Well...wait, what's that question mark doing there? That wasn't a question.

Well, here's what evolution is:

"In fact evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes Biology 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers p.974

On top of that lovely definition, it's also an explanation of biodiversity.

Besides it not offering much to humanity

Except an explanation of biodiversity and a foundation for modern biology.

I would like to hear in users own words the implications of evolution...

The implication is that...things evolve. Therefore...they change. Over time. Over successive generations.

If one can not explain what their religion means to them then what good is it really ?

Evolution isn't a religion, it's a scientific theory explaining biodiversity.

I would keep the preaching from both sides to a minimum...

...no preaching from me. Evolution is science, it doesn't require preaching.

hence no links of other peoples words used to try to convince either party of facts that are really not their own.

So no citations? No references? Hell no!
I'm going to back up my claims with evidence.

Oh and the facts aren't yours or mine, they're ours. We all have the same facts. We may have our own opinions, but the facts aren't subjective.

reply to post by aliengenes

Originally posted by aliengenes
when has evolution ever been seen since man arrived?

I wish I had some amount of money for every time I had to post these links.
Here are some observed instances of evolution occuring in nature.

Here are even more instances that we've observed.

wheres the missing link?

Which one? I mean, we have plenty of transitional forms.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I offer this thread for the Evolutionist

Evolutionist is a silly word. I've even made a thread about how silly it is.

to express what evolution means to you ?

Well...wait, what's that question mark doing there? That wasn't a question.

Well, here's what evolution is:

"In fact evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes Biology 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers p.974

On top of that lovely definition, it's also an explanation of biodiversity.

Besides it not offering much to humanity

Except an explanation of biodiversity and a foundation for modern biology.

I would like to hear in users own words the implications of evolution...

The implication is that...things evolve. Therefore...they change. Over time. Over successive generations.

If one can not explain what their religion means to them then what good is it really ?

Evolution isn't a religion, it's a scientific theory explaining biodiversity.

I would keep the preaching from both sides to a minimum...

...no preaching from me. Evolution is science, it doesn't require preaching.

hence no links of other peoples words used to try to convince either party of facts that are really not their own.

So no citations? No references? Hell no!
I'm going to back up my claims with evidence.

Oh and the facts aren't yours or mine, they're ours. We all have the same facts. We may have our own opinions, but the facts aren't subjective.

reply to post by aliengenes

 

Originally posted by aliengenes
when has evolution ever been seen since man arrived?

I wish I had some amount of money for every time I had to post these links.
Here are some observed instances of evolution occuring in nature.

Here are even more instances that we've observed.

wheres the missing link?

Which one? I mean, we have plenty of transitional forms.

my point proven... and for all to see.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Well, for one, the entire medical field has improved thanks to evolution. Things like immunizations are based on how viruses evolve. Even something as common as antibiotics are constantly being updated to better fight bacteria. So, if you don't consider being able to survive common diseases important, then I guess you wouldn't consider anything else we've done thanks to our study of evolution important.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


So I make a very detailed post explaining exactly why you're wrong and all you say is:

my point proven... and for all to see.

You can't just say that. You must demonstrate it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

So I make a very detailed post explaining exactly why you're wrong and all you say is:

my point proven... and for all to see.

You can't just say that. You must demonstrate it.

your so called 'detailed' posts are dissassembly rhetoric and serve no other purpose but to attack other posters. (of which you just started doing to me) I can see the reasoning behind your logic, it's not pretty.

So you are just out to bash ? other people and the main philosophy that gave birth to your Religion... Evolution does not answer everything and like I have said before it is only a little twig. Creationist have accepted your religion and we add it to the greater meaning.

I call Evolution a religion when directed to you because you defend it like it is...

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Besides it not offering much to humanity

No, it offers plenty to humanity.

If one can not explain what their religion means to them then what good is it really ?

Are you claiming that a scientific theory is a "religion"?

So what does evolution really mean to you ?

It means we have a well-established understanding of an unbroken chain of life going back billions of years.

I get the impression from your post that you may stand in opposition to this theory: a science-denier. I sincerely hope not, particularly if you're doing so due to a belief in a religion.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
your so called 'detailed' posts are dissassembly rhetoric and serve no other purpose but to attack other posters.

I'm sorry, but how? Again you're making a claim that you aren't backing up.

I do disassemble, but that's how you see how things work. However, there's no rhetoric, only reason.

(of which you just started doing to me)

You're spouting off ignorance, I'm trying to plug the hole or at least bail out the boat.

I can see the reasoning behind your logic, it's not pretty.

What? What are you trying to imply?

So you are just out to bash ?

Who have I bashed? I'm basing my responses on the content of other people's posts. I'm not attacking individuals, only arguments.

other people and the main philosophy that gave birth to your Religion...

Again: Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory that explains biodiversity

Evolution does not answer everything and like I have said before it is only a little twig.

It's a scientific theory on the tree of science, sure. I specifically have told you that I don't think it explains everything.

Creationist have accepted your religion and we add it to the greater meaning.

...Once more:Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory that explains biodiversity
Also, creationists tend to reject evolution.

I call Evolution a religion when directed to you because you defend it like it is...

No, I defend it like it's a brilliant scientific theory that's under attack by people who don't understand it and are trying to get it pulled out of education.

I'd do the same if people were attacking cell biology, germ theory, circuit theory, or any other well-established scientific theory.

Evolution is right by all the evidence. Now, if there was evidence to show it as wrong, I'd accept it and move on to whatever scientific theory explained things better.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
It means we have a well-established understanding of an unbroken chain of life going back billions of years.

I get the impression from your post that you may stand in opposition to this theory: a science-denier. I sincerely hope not, particularly if you're doing so due to a belief in a religion.

wow finally got one with a hint of something other than glossolalia, I am not a science denier no and yes Philosophy gives rise to science.

In the beginning was the word...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


still not reading till you learn to use paragraphs, maybe try hitting the "reply-to" tab instead of the "quote" tab.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I am not a science denier no and yes Philosophy gives rise to science.

Excellent. So you accept the theory of evolution as sound science. I might argue that observation and experimentation give rise to science, not so much philosophy.

In the beginning was the word...

What does this mean in context to your post? What does a passage from Genesis have to do with the theory of evolution?

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Wow, so replying to individual points you make is somehow inferior to writing things out in essay form? Another thing is that my posts are paragraphed, they just tend to be one sentence paragraphs because you don't really make any substantial points.

Considering my posts are well formatted and not messy, I don't see a single reason for you to actually ignore my posts. They're readable, they're well-written, and they aren't anywhere near as patronizing as the pseudo-philosophical drivel you spout off.

Of course, you could just be afraid of responding to my refutation of your points.

And if you notice, I tend to hit both the 'reply to' and the 'quote' buttons.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


At least he acknowledged your posts. Mine was apparently "glossolalia" despite directly answering the question he was asking.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


That's sad. I tend to star your posts for a reason, they're damned good posts



Now, I think the more general issue is that you, Cosmic.Artifact don't use little things like reason or evidence in your posts. You don't address people's arguments and you don't provide any basis for the claims you're making.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I am not a science denier no and yes Philosophy gives rise to science.

Excellent. So you accept the theory of evolution as sound science. I might argue that observation and experimentation give rise to science, not so much philosophy.

In the beginning was the word...

What does this mean in context to your post? What does a passage from Genesis have to do with the theory of evolution?

Who knows if it is sound or not ? only time will tell and unfortunately no one is going to be around in billions of years to prove this theory.

my quote from genesis come directly from a philosophical stand point... first one has to think in order for there to be experiment in the first place does it not ? Philosophy or what ever you like to call it gave rise to science/experiment without the thought there is not experiment.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

That's sad. I tend to star your posts for a reason, they're damned good posts

 

Now, I think the more general issue is that you, Cosmic.Artifact don't use little things like reason or evidence in your posts. You don't address people's arguments and you don't provide any basis for the claims you're making.

are you losing my friend ? I like how you address me by name, that show much respect

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
You don't address people's arguments and you don't provide any basis for the claims you're making.

I like stuff that is self-evident... try just for once in this thread not to use links and others logic, afterall alot of it could be wrong.

You know I love star trek mostly TNG/VOY/ENT and as much as the show is driven by science and technology and the episodes dealing with evolution and practically anything still the underlying theme to ever show is Morality.

So no I do not hate science, I respect the questions it asks... because I know where these questions came from in the first place. Philosophy has a few millennia on evolution lol and it's not even good philosophy, it just boring as stated.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Who knows if it is sound or not ? only time will tell and unfortunately no one is going to be around in billions of years to prove this theory.

The theory doesn't need billions of years to be proven. In fact, it's already been proven, corroborated by a confluence of many branches of science, and today stands as likely the most well-established scientific theory that has ever existed.

my quote from genesis come directly from a philosophical stand point... first one has to think in order for there to be experiment in the first place does it not ? Philosophy or what ever you like to call it gave rise to science/experiment without the thought there is not experiment.

Sure, one thinks, but often this is reconciling an observation about the world.

Two things you've mentioned have me puzzled at this point. Firstly, in the OP it seems that you imply that the theory of evolution serves as a sort of religion that one must explain. Please correct me if I am wrong. Secondly, you claimed not to be a science denier, yet you've exhibited a doubt about the soundness of the theory of evolution. I am curious as to how one could hold a seemingly contradictory stance, and what exactly it is about the theory that you would find doubtful.