There's Something Very FISHY About Evolution! Smell it here!

reply to post by squiz

How could we read without eyes? The word evolves itself, as more learn to see. Go drink some green tea with honey with your eyes closed, while you are younger.

But what put us on that step above all other creatures of this planet?

Not siding with god or anything like that,but something got us to were we are now.

How did we become creative artist from hunters and gatherers?
Full bellies and too much time on our hands?

Use to be that it started 12,000 years ago with agriculture.
Then they discovered fishing hooks and beads.
Now,it has been bumped back to 40,000 years ago.

In terms of our anatomical selves,we have been here 200k or so.


It has been said that there was an "explosion" of creativity.

Sorry,off a bit,had to get a monkey out of a cage.(someone was stuck in an elevator)

Originally posted by jheated5
It's funny that you use salmon as an example here because they are perfect examples of evolution, we're talking observable evolution here.... Within one generation of salmon born in a hatchery they changed their genes in order to excel in surviving there, at the cost of them not being able to mate in the wild... So thanks for playing...

Actually the fact they were in a hatchery is non-evolutionary. You are not accounting for the intelligent design behind a hatchery designed by humans that coerced the changes seen in the fish, therefor the changes you saw were initiated by an act of intelligent design.

What if evolution is part of the intelligent design? What if the whole concept of evolution was intentionally intelligently designed from the very get to into a cell?

Can we not today intelligently manipulate genes to create a new species that will without a doubt....evolve to its surroundings as well?

Just to put on the record I am NOT a creationist, nor an evolutionist....I believe both concepts exist in harmony together in a sort of which came first the chicken or the egg type of deal...

We create life and watch it evolve...we have done this to the amount of 7 billion times now and its quite obvious that both creation and evolution exist.

This is no different than cells that evolve. At first the cell needed to be created...and if you argue the cells evolved from elements, then you must consider that the elements were created...or is evolution the governing principal behind the elements now as well? If such is the case what governs the "Natural selection" process of protons, neutrons and electrons that created those elements?

Can we not today intelligently design and create "new elements" that do not exist in the "natural world" for a "purpose"???

There are 28 man-made elements on the periodic table:

technetium (Tc), 43
promethium (Pm), 61
neptunium (Np), 93
plutonium (Pu), 94
americium (Am), 95
curium (Cm), 96
berkelium (Bk), 97
californium (Cf), 98
einsteinium (Es), 99
fermium (Fm), 100
mendelevium (Md), 101
nobelium (No), 102
lawrencium (Lr), 103
rutherfordium (Rf), 104
dubnium (Db), 105
seaborgium (Sg), 106
bohrium (Bh), 107
hassium (Hs), 108
meitnerium (Mt), 109
darmstadtium (Ds), 110
roentgenium (Rg), 111
copernicium (Cn), 112

these elements would probably never have "evolved" without the human intelligent design factor because they would have no purpose in the natural world outside of intelligently designed human purposes...

I'll finish with saying that I believe creation and evolution could not exist without one another. These concepts need to be joined not divided...

reply to post by EnochWasRight



I was going to argue on the side of logic and reason, but whats the point? These christians are so brainwashed they are actually quoting the bible as if its any kind of valid proof. Why are you quoting something written 4000 years ago by some arab with a education equivalent to kindergarten as if its intelligent? Stop embarrassing yourself LOL


The only hope for them is to actually go out and get an education. Religion is only for the weak minded...

PS: Santas comming in a few months!

Originally posted by kdog1982
But what put us on that step above all other creatures of this planet?

Not siding with god or anything like that,but something got us to were we are now.

How did we become creative artist from hunters and gatherers?
Full bellies and too much time on our hands?

Use to be that it started 12,000 years ago with agriculture.
Then they discovered fishing hooks and beads.
Now,it has been bumped back to 40,000 years ago.

In terms of our anatomical selves,we have been here 200k or so.


It has been said that there was an "explosion" of creativity.

Sorry,off a bit,had to get a monkey out of a cage.(someone was stuck in an elevator)

We developed a bigger brain and disposable thumbs. That's all that really needed to happen. And during a time period where we almost went extinct, hunting and gathering became our means of survival. And 200 thousand years is a very long time for this branch of ours we consider the modern human species. And if you think 100's of thousands of years is an explosion of creativity, it's not.. Our current species evolved out of the great apes ect over millions of years.. And it didn't take crows very long to learn how to use traffic lights and cars to crack nuts did it?

Actually the fact they were in a hatchery is non-evolutionary. You are not accounting for the intelligent design behind a hatchery designed by humans that coerced the changes seen in the fish, therefor the changes you saw were initiated by an act of intelligent design.

If it was done through breeding, we surely can.. Coerced just tells me you don't get what co-evolution is. I don't recall humans going in and changing the genome of the fish themselves..But rather they understood evolution theory enough to know they can manipulate a product through breeding..Just as we did with wolves to dogs..

What if evolution is part of the intelligent design? What if the whole concept of evolution was intentionally intelligently designed from the very get to into a cell?

You mean electromagnetism and environmental pressures? Really? Ok, what designed a cognitive system for ID to be possible?

reply to post by TheJackelantern


Maybe that is what our niche in the world was,our adaptability better than the rest.
We lost our fur due to warm climate and lice, we made clothes out of the furs from the animals we killed to eat.
We moved into those areas that most predators avoided.
Many large mammals disappeared during that time,not due to humans,but due to a change in the climate.

Originally posted by TheJackelantern

Originally posted by kdog1982
But what put us on that step above all other creatures of this planet?

Not siding with god or anything like that,but something got us to were we are now.

How did we become creative artist from hunters and gatherers?
Full bellies and too much time on our hands?

Use to be that it started 12,000 years ago with agriculture.
Then they discovered fishing hooks and beads.
Now,it has been bumped back to 40,000 years ago.

In terms of our anatomical selves,we have been here 200k or so.


It has been said that there was an "explosion" of creativity.

Sorry,off a bit,had to get a monkey out of a cage.(someone was stuck in an elevator)

We developed a bigger brain and disposable thumbs. That's all that really needed to happen. And during a time period where we almost went extinct, hunting and gathering became our means of survival. And 200 thousand years is a very long time for this branch of ours we consider the modern human species. And if you think 100's of thousands of years is an explosion of creativity, it's not.. Our current species evolved out of the great apes ect over millions of years.. And it didn't take crows very long to learn how to use traffic lights and cars to crack nuts did it?

edit on 2-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

And we developed those things for what reasons? Survival? I don't think so...our ancestors are still alive and kickin it today regardless of the fact they didn't develop those things. In fact many of the so called "inferior" life forms on the planet are by all means more equipped to survive hostile environments than modern man is. We are "evolving" more and more into a dependent species. Depending on just in time delivery systems, air conditioning, heating, electricity, gas, etc....our survival is becoming more and more DEPENDENT...this isn't necessarily a great survival strategy.

Last time I checked inferior life most notably bacteria has long outlasted any and all types of life that have ever existed. They can survive extremes on their own without crutches of technology opposable thumbs and large brains...bacteria will long outlast the human species and is far more capable of survival...so the notion that evolution is driven by survival of the fittest doesn't make much sense when all things are considered...

Originally posted by kdog1982
reply to post by TheJackelantern

 

Maybe that is what our niche in the world was,our adaptability better than the rest.
We lost our fur due to warm climate and lice, we made clothes out of the furs from the animals we killed to eat.
We moved into those areas that most predators avoided.
Many large mammals disappeared during that time,not due to humans,but due to a change in the climate.

I understand that, and the Mammoths were largely hunted by humans, and it seems to the point of extinction from what I understand. But yes, environmental factors played a big role in our evolution. Surviving winters for us required us to think more, to be more creative. It was a do or die, it wasn't like living in a city where we get our food at the store.. There was far more pressure to be creative then. Brain usage creates more neural pathways, and possibly passing those genes on to the next generation. We became efficient problem solvers.

Originally posted by Sly1one

Originally posted by jheated5
It's funny that you use salmon as an example here because they are perfect examples of evolution, we're talking observable evolution here.... Within one generation of salmon born in a hatchery they changed their genes in order to excel in surviving there, at the cost of them not being able to mate in the wild... So thanks for playing...

Actually the fact they were in a hatchery is non-evolutionary. You are not accounting for the intelligent design behind a hatchery designed by humans that coerced the changes seen in the fish, therefor the changes you saw were initiated by an act of intelligent design.

What if evolution is part of the intelligent design? What if the whole concept of evolution was intentionally intelligently designed from the very get to into a cell?

Can we not today intelligently manipulate genes to create a new species that will without a doubt....evolve to its surroundings as well?

Just to put on the record I am NOT a creationist, nor an evolutionist....I believe both concepts exist in harmony together in a sort of which came first the chicken or the egg type of deal...

We create life and watch it evolve...we have done this to the amount of 7 billion times now and its quite obvious that both creation and evolution exist.

This is no different than cells that evolve. At first the cell needed to be created...and if you argue the cells evolved from elements, then you must consider that the elements were created...or is evolution the governing principal behind the elements now as well? If such is the case what governs the "Natural selection" process of protons, neutrons and electrons that created those elements?

Can we not today intelligently design and create "new elements" that do not exist in the "natural world" for a "purpose"???

There are 28 man-made elements on the periodic table:

technetium (Tc), 43
promethium (Pm), 61
neptunium (Np), 93
plutonium (Pu), 94
americium (Am), 95
curium (Cm), 96
berkelium (Bk), 97
californium (Cf), 98
einsteinium (Es), 99
fermium (Fm), 100
mendelevium (Md), 101
nobelium (No), 102
lawrencium (Lr), 103
rutherfordium (Rf), 104
dubnium (Db), 105
seaborgium (Sg), 106
bohrium (Bh), 107
hassium (Hs), 108
meitnerium (Mt), 109
darmstadtium (Ds), 110
roentgenium (Rg), 111
copernicium (Cn), 112

these elements would probably never have "evolved" without the human intelligent design factor because they would have no purpose in the natural world outside of intelligently designed human purposes...

I'll finish with saying that I believe creation and evolution could not exist without one another. These concepts need to be joined not divided...

edit on 2-8-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)

These elements DO exist in nature, but only for a very, very short time. Learn some basic nuclear physics first, please. They are part of some radioactive series, want me to look them up? Nothing unusual/unnatural here.

And we developed those things for what reasons? Survival? I don't think so...our ancestors are still alive and kickin it today regardless of the fact they didn't develop those things. In fact many of the so called "inferior" life forms on the planet are by all means more equipped to survive hostile environments than modern man is. We are "evolving" more and more into a dependent species. Depending on just in time delivery systems, air conditioning, heating, electricity, gas, etc....our survival is becoming more and more DEPENDENT...this isn't necessarily a great survival strategy.

You're building a straw man argument here.. You're acting as if evolution means it guarantees "progression" to advancing to higher states. Just because our ancestors didn't, doesn't mean we didn't. Hence, you made a straw man argument. And yes, everything was about "survival" for the most part. If you don't think so, we can help you learn that lesson real fast by dumping you in the wild with nothing but the cloths on your back.. Your entire focus will be to survive and adapt to the environment or die. It's that simple, and if you fail, you die and get selected out..

Last time I checked inferior life most notably bacteria has long outlasted any and all types of life that have ever existed. They can survive extremes on their own without crutches of technology opposable thumbs and large brains...bacteria will long outlast the human species and is far more capable of survival...so the notion that

irrelevant, longevity is not an argument.. And you do realize that bacteria plays a huge role in your biology to which does much of the work to keep you alive.. There are trillions of them in your body. And you are a multicellular organism. And yes, bacteria will likely outlast the human species... Especially thermophiles. I fail to see your point.

If such is the case what governs the "Natural selection" process of protons, neutrons and electrons that created those elements?

Electromagnetism.. Life and literally almost everything around you is electromagnetic phenomenon. Gravity and pressure pressure waves of course not being so. But those forces also shape evolutionary processes, and even how things grow. Look at what happens in zero G:

www.redorbit.com...

And the reason why plants can grow without gravity is because they are electromagnetically governed. That includes growth in accordance to light sensitivity. And if you want to know more.. Yeah we discovered the Higgs too which completes the standard model that defines very much how things work. Learn what the four forces are.. Another good thing to look up is the four stages of matter. These videos are pretty good videos:

four stages of matter
The Standard model Lecture by Brian Cox
Protein: Thermodynamics
Photon Energy and Life
Photon is the energy evolution of everything

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by ManFromEurope

 

A theory is a belief that you can formulate a test for.

And it's not my responsibility to replace your theory if I can ask a question that puts it into doubt.

For example if you were trying to build a car, but one of the parts simply wasn't designed correctly and you couldn't get the car working, and I pointed at the broken part and said "That part doesn't seem to be correct", you will keep expecting the car to work until I invent a better part and replace it?

Well, first of all, it's not my car, so although I can give you suggestions and point out what I think is a problem, it's ultimately not my responsibly to replace the part.
And secondly, I would suggest everyone who cares about the car to be conscripted into the task of figuring out how to design a better part so that maybe we can have a working car soon.

I am not saying abandon the car, but it's obvious we need to revise our understanding of car mechanics theory and come up with better solutions so we can get it running.

Forgive the extensive metaphor but hopefully it will be sensible.

No, it is not sensible, and this is not only because you used the word "obvious", which is a hint on "believe me, I can't explain, but believe me anyway".

Show your supposed errors in evolution.

I know that style of argumenting, you don't deliver points of your own, just trying to disassemble points of your discussion partners. Thus I will not longer take part in this. Bring up your own points, otherwise I choose to ignore your refusals.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by ManFromEurope

 

A theory is a belief that you can formulate a test for.

And it's not my responsibility to replace your theory if I can ask a question that puts it into doubt.

For example if you were trying to build a car, but one of the parts simply wasn't designed correctly and you couldn't get the car working, and I pointed at the broken part and said "That part doesn't seem to be correct", you will keep expecting the car to work until I invent a better part and replace it?

Well, first of all, it's not my car, so although I can give you suggestions and point out what I think is a problem, it's ultimately not my responsibly to replace the part.
And secondly, I would suggest everyone who cares about the car to be conscripted into the task of figuring out how to design a better part so that maybe we can have a working car soon.

I am not saying abandon the car, but it's obvious we need to revise our understanding of car mechanics theory and come up with better solutions so we can get it running.

Forgive the extensive metaphor but hopefully it will be sensible.

Bring up the supposed errors of evolution.

I know that style of argumentation, you just try to disassemble the arguments of your discussion partners without coming out with your own points in detail, so you could never be attacked or could always say that that attack didn't hit because it was way off your points.

Originally posted by TheJackelantern

Actually the fact they were in a hatchery is non-evolutionary. You are not accounting for the intelligent design behind a hatchery designed by humans that coerced the changes seen in the fish, therefor the changes you saw were initiated by an act of intelligent design.

If it was done through breeding, we surely can.. Coerced just tells me you don't get what co-evolution is. I don't recall humans going in and changing the genome of the fish themselves..But rather they understood evolution theory enough to know they can manipulate a product through breeding..Just as we did with wolves to dogs..

The breeding you are talking about is an intelligent process...Evolution itself is an intelligent process and to say its not is to say that everything man has accomplished is just evolutionary happenstance. The airplane, the car, the nuclear reactor, the ISS...etc....all evolutionary happenstance...

All of those things came about because we evolved to the point we could CREATE those things...they didn't just happen to evolve out of thin air without INTELLIGENT design...and human beings didn't either...life didn't...

If ever we were to create a race of AI robots that were capable of duplicating themselves...would they too think they evolved by "happenstance"? Would they think they came about over eons of junkyard scarps re-arranging themselves?

If human beings and all life evolved by a roll of a dice then everything that we attribute to human intelligence is also nothing but a evolutionary roll of the dice.

Again, I am not debunking evolution it is a real process of change over time but I am also not disregarding creation as an equally important part of the whole process. Two sides of the same coin making up some change over time...

reply to post by Sly1one


Wrong.. the breeding is just manipulating the environment.. And nature can do that itself regarding changes of environment. Your point is a straw-man, you don't get why breeding proves your very statement as not only refuted, but self-refuting. If you want to claim ID, you would have to go to synthetic life, and cloning.. Otherwise it's just co-evolutionary example. You can say intelligence was involved in controlling the environment, but evolution played it's roll. And I gave you examples of salmon naturally evolving to which of course was ignored to no surprise here.

reply to post by TheJackelantern


I did say that I do believe in evolution right? I thought I made that pretty apparent, I'm not debunking evolution as real, I'm simply saying that its not the ONLY thing possible that brought about everything we see in our modern world. So as to you implying I'm ignoring the natural evolution of fish example you gave for some nefarious evolutionary debunking purpose is false...

I think we are ultimately arguing over the starting point of a circle...

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by TheJackelantern

 

I did say that I do believe in evolution right? I thought I made that pretty apparent, I'm not debunking evolution as real, I'm simply saying that its not the ONLY thing possible that brought about everything we see in our modern world. So as to you implying I'm ignoring the natural evolution of fish example you gave for some nefarious evolutionary debunking purpose is false...

I think we are ultimately arguing over the starting point of a circle...

In that case I would agree that it's not the only thing possible. I won't refute that life could be made by another living intelligent life form .. We have pretty much done that, and done so even with artificial information. What I was going on is your response in regards to the title and purpose of this page, and it seemed to me at first that your argument was in support of the OP's premises.. So I apologize if I had misinterpreted your stance here .. It's an amazing thing this existence is, so amazing it seems to amazing to be.. After all, we as conscious beings exist to be here and admire it.. We could be the only hope for our Universe to learn of itself and understand itself. And that may even determine the very future of our species since if we can't get off this rock we call Earth, our species is fundamentally doomed :/ The good news is that we do have time...We have about 1.5 billion years before our star starts burning more helium than hydrogen. And when it starts doing that, the sun will start getting very hot. So hot it's unlikely we will be able to survive beyond this point. But that is if we don't destroy ourselves before hand.

Btw, I find it interesting that I was docked -1800 points for making an analogy of dishonest discourse here. And yet dishonesty earns ATS points without possible penalty. I find that to be a rather badge of honor giving I don't sacrifice intellectual integrity for the sake of points here. Standing up for honest discourse isn't without it's cost even though I've posted far more contributing material to this fora than those whom are so intentionally dishonest. I might be the first to get banned for standing up for honest discourse by not respecting dishonest discourse.

reply to post by TheJackelantern


First. I didn't report you but I came close.

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
Btw, I find it interesting that I was docked -1800 points for making an analogy of dishonest discourse here. And yet dishonesty earns ATS points without possible penalty.

Yes you see it that way. What you don't see is a clear breach of the T&C you agreed to. Most people coming to this forum should be capable of reading and understanding the rules.

I find that to be a rather badge of honor giving I don't sacrifice intellectual integrity for the sake of points here.

A noble cause. But that's not what this is about. It's about unwarranted personal attacks. It's about bad etiquette. Hell I don't know I am not a moderator and I didnt report you but I can only surmise.

Standing up for honest discourse isn't without it's cost even though I've posted far more contributing material to this fora than those whom are so intentionally dishonest.

LOL! See this is the arrogance that might have got you in trouble. Most of the members you are most likely alluding to predate you by YEARS! That assertion is asinine! Good grief.

Yes you see it that way. What you don't see is a clear breach of the T&C you agreed to. Most people coming to this forum should be capable of reading and understanding the rules.

No I saw it...and it's something often breached here on these forums.. However, I made an analogy of behavior..Behavior here that is rewarded, and some how should be respected. Sorry, I don't respect such behavior what-so-ever. I don't sacrifice intellectual integrity for basic fora civility. I will call it out.

A noble cause. But that's not what this is about. It's about unwarranted personal attacks. It's about bad etiquette. Hell I don't know I am not a moderator and I didnt report you but I can only surmise.

Definitely not in this political climate here in America. And anything can be considered a personal attack vs someone addressing a behavior and what they think of it. And it's not a matter if you reported it or if a forum moderator addressed it. My post here isn't a complaint, its an interesting observation of the ATS point system Hence, I am wearing the negative points here as a badge of honor.

LOL! See this is the arrogance that might have got you in trouble. Most of the members you are most likely alluding to predate you by YEARS! That assertion is asinine! Good grief.

I'm in no trouble here, it's just a forum on the internet to which I am sure has a great community on it. But to get worried about getting into trouble on an online forum is silly. I try to respect people, but there is a limit to my respect. So I tend to be very outspoken and honest of how I view such dishonesty when I see it. And arrogance doesn't mean I am wrong in my observation here. And I could careless if they "predate me". I go on the value of a topic, discussion, and the intellectual integrity of an individual, and on an individual basis. If you think I should respect a dishonest person's behavior and lack of intellectual integrity because they "predate" me, you're living in la la land.. :/


So if the point system reflected intellectual integrity, honesty, honest discourse, it would look very different here.. This is just an observation