Is the theory of evolution responsible for a toxic society?

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


If you read the paper, it is a directly observed and repeated example of macroevolution through experimentation.

Through over 30,000 generations of a species, they eventually saw a complete new key innovation... ie. a new species... which had developed the capacity to process different nutrients (an analogy would like breeding a dog that could breathe under water, or ingest plastics for sustenance).

This is not microevolution... this is the direct observation of a major genetic change allowing for a "new" species to thrive in a hitherto incompatible environment.

We can do the same thing with any species,,, though 30,000 generations of a larger more complex species takes a lot longer to observe, in addition to the potential of a larger organism taking many more generations for macroevolution characteristics to become apparent.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. It is only refering to the amount of time that the ongoing processes of evolution have taken place.

Wrong.

Macro refers to sudden & large genetic changes.

There have never been any large or sudden changes attributed to evolution. I will happily look over any examples you would like to put forth though.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Birds have evolved from dinosaurs.

Also there is a post not far above this that links to a number of them.

edit on 20-3-2013 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)

Birds were created by God.

Dinosaurs were created by God.

Here is a link to my religious belief: www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

Oh, ok.
So, you don't know, you don't try to understand the underlying mechanisms by which things happen, you just want a label to hide the holes in your knowledge, you aren't actually trying to understand.
It's good that we now understand your approach.
I can respect your right to think so, even if I think it makes no logical sense

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Ok. So do you believe that humans have always existed in the physical form that we exist in today?

Yes, 100%.

I have no idea of the genetic makeup of our original ancestors (Adam & Eve) but I can only assume that they had a very diverse set of genes and their offspring would have been a product of some of their recessive genes.

Originally posted by drakus

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Birds have evolved from dinosaurs.

Also there is a post not far above this that links to a number of them.

edit on 20-3-2013 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)

Birds were created by God.

Dinosaurs were created by God.

Here is a link to my religious belief: www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

Oh, ok.
So, you don't know, you don't try to understand the underlying mechanisms by which things happen, you just want a label to hide the holes in your knowledge, you aren't actually trying to understand.
It's good that we now understand your approach.
I can respect your right to think so, even if I think it makes no logical sense

It is no different than your belief in the big bang, abiogenesis & macroevolution.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Ok. So do you believe that humans have always existed in the physical form that we exist in today?

Yes, 100%.

I have no idea of the genetic makeup of our original ancestors (Adam & Eve) but I can only assume that they had a very diverse set of genes and their offspring would have been a product of some of their recessive genes.

Ok. But this is pretty easy information to come by. It is an exact science that can trace these genes back much much farther than the form which we exist in now. Look up mitochondrial DNA. It has been proven without a doubt that we have evolved from other species. The info is out there. That much is conclusive. So for you to deny this actually is an effort to stay ignorant on the subject.

Originally posted by Tennessee77

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. It is only refering to the amount of time that the ongoing processes of evolution have taken place.

Wrong.

Macro refers to sudden & large genetic changes.

There have never been any large or sudden changes attributed to evolution. I will happily look over any examples you would like to put forth though.

There have never been any proven examples of observed macroevolution. You make my point.

Without macroevolution the theory of evolution falls apart.

Each kind of animal can only reproduce after it's own kind. Eg Zebra's, donkeys, horses, etc... all belong to the same group of animals and even though they are a different species of animal in some cases they can still reproduce with one another.

A horse cannot reproduce with an elephant. A cat cannot reproduce with a dog.


Adaptation to the environment along with the breeding within each kind of animal are examples of microevolution.

Originally posted by Tennessee77

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Ok. So do you believe that humans have always existed in the physical form that we exist in today?

Yes, 100%.

I have no idea of the genetic makeup of our original ancestors (Adam & Eve) but I can only assume that they had a very diverse set of genes and their offspring would have been a product of some of their recessive genes.

Ok. But this is pretty easy information to come by. It is an exact science that can trace these genes back much much farther than the form which we exist in now. Look up mitochondrial DNA. It has been proven without a doubt that we have evolved from other species. The info is out there. That much is conclusive. So for you to deny this actually is an effort to stay ignorant on the subject.

Humans have evolved from other species but not from animals. We call the different species of humans 'races'.
It is microevolution, not macro. Mitochondrial DNA does not prove macroevolution at all.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


And what about birds from dinos? And modern man from neanderthal?

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by drakus

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Birds have evolved from dinosaurs.

Also there is a post not far above this that links to a number of them.

edit on 20-3-2013 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)

Birds were created by God.

Dinosaurs were created by God.

Here is a link to my religious belief: www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

Oh, ok.
So, you don't know, you don't try to understand the underlying mechanisms by which things happen, you just want a label to hide the holes in your knowledge, you aren't actually trying to understand.
It's good that we now understand your approach.
I can respect your right to think so, even if I think it makes no logical sense

It is no different than your belief in the big bang, abiogenesis & macroevolution.

Yes, it is different.
I don't believe in the Theory of Evolution.
I think that right know it is the more scientifically sound model we have to describe the observed changes in mechanisms and complexity of life-forms.

Thought and Belief are two different things.
One includes actually thinking.


PS: To explain myself better: If someone finds a better way to EXPLAIN the observed changes in life-forms, I would take it in consideration, as long as it is a proposition built with the scientific method.
You are offering absolutely NO explanation, you are just saying "X did it". That is useless to me.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


It is very different.

Your arguments are coming from an unfalsifiable position.

Evolution, Abiogenesis and the Big Bang are coming from objective falsifiable theories.

You have to have faith to believe something unfalsifiable, while you can test the reality of falsifiable theories.

I don't "believe" in evolution, but I accept the facts that surround the theory as describing our reality accurately within our current sensory spectrum. However I don't fully accept the big bang theory, because as of yet it hasn't accurately described all of the sensory data that we have.. it only describes bits of it.

This means to me that there is still more to discover about our universe... which is exciting!

Bringing this back on topic...

To me all of this discussion shows that an idea by itself can't be toxic. There has been some interesting debate, some unique viewpoints raised, some vitriol and some level headed arguments.

An idea isn't toxic by itself, it is the application of the idea, and the volatility and attitude of opposing viewpoints that lead to toxicity.

As with the idea of love.. by itself it isn't toxic, but many toxic tales (as well as pure tales) have been told around the concepts of love.

Cheers

reply to post by puzzlesphere


Hi puzzlesphere. I think you have touched on the main difference between people like us and people like nutjob here. It is the process by which we verify our facts to come to conclusions about the world we live in. If you can accept the story of any deity and claim that all you need is faith. And then deny scientific methodologies without even reading and trying to understand them, then there is no hope of convincing them otherwise. This i think is part of the reason that society seems so corrupt and unfair as this thread tries to lay the blame at the feet of the people who are actually trying to understand these fields of study.

I watched a show about how New Zealand sank at some point in history and rose later down the line.
There are many animals there that shouldn't be, and they are only there. There are no real predators, birds scavenge the floor because they don't need flight.

I think the only predator there is a type of bat.

Point is without any real predators the animals have evolved to survive with different methods than any would expect.

reply to post by wildtimes


I dont blame evolution, religion etc I blame people. Lax drugged out dingbats ruined this country.

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by puzzlesphere

 

Hi puzzlesphere. I think you have touched on the main difference between people like us and people like nutjob here. It is the process by which we verify our facts to come to conclusions about the world we live in. If you can accept the story of any deity and claim that all you need is faith. And then deny scientific methodologies without even reading and trying to understand them, then there is no hope of convincing them otherwise. This i think is part of the reason that society seems so corrupt and unfair as this thread tries to lay the blame at the feet of the people who are actually trying to understand these fields of study.

I love science.

The scientific method is brilliant. I just don't like scientific theory posed as fact when it is simply a theory and quite often a very poor one. I am not against theorising weird and wonderful things, just don't present them as factual science. They are religious in nature and based on someone's interpretation of their surroundings.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Tennessee77

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Ok. So do you believe that humans have always existed in the physical form that we exist in today?

Yes, 100%.

I have no idea of the genetic makeup of our original ancestors (Adam & Eve) but I can only assume that they had a very diverse set of genes and their offspring would have been a product of some of their recessive genes.

Ok. But this is pretty easy information to come by. It is an exact science that can trace these genes back much much farther than the form which we exist in now. Look up mitochondrial DNA. It has been proven without a doubt that we have evolved from other species. The info is out there. That much is conclusive. So for you to deny this actually is an effort to stay ignorant on the subject.

Humans have evolved from other species but not from animals. We call the different species of humans 'races'.
It is microevolution, not macro. Mitochondrial DNA does not prove macroevolution at all.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed down from mother to child. It is very accurate for dilineating different familial lines and traces humans back way farther than the form we take today. It is proof possitive of evolution. Humans are animals.

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Believing in facts isn't religious, and lumping different theories together is disingenuous.


I accept evolution because it has been proven, and as of yet nothing has disproved it.
I am leaning towards Abiogenesis being correct within our current understanding because the isolated theoretical models are coming very close to describing reality when applied contextually.
The Big Bang theory I am still on the fence, and don't "believe" it, as you put it, because as of yet it hasn't adequately been explained. I lean more towards the theories of the Holographic Universe rather than the Big Bang.

Gave you a star. I am with you on what you said.

As far as the Big Bang theory I have changed my mind on it. There have been a few other theories’ I have read that have swayed me in their direction. We do know the universe is expanding currently which does lend to the big Bang theory however the origins of the universe will be a point of contention long after I am gone. It is a fascinating field for those who are in it and for myself as a curious individual.

Evolution has been proven as far as I am concerned the evidence is overwhelmingly on its side. A couple years ago I took a trip to the Galápagos Islands while I was there I took a small tour where the guide pointed out how some of the species have changed even from Darwin’s time. The evidence is undeniable to those who are smart enough to understand.

As far as abiogenesis it seems like a sound theory and to date I haven’t read a better one of course life could have originated from somewhere else than earth but the question would still remain on how did that life come into existence?

If evidence is ever produced showing that a mystical force had a hand in the creation of life the elusive purple flying spaghetti monster for instance then I will except it easily however none has been introduced to date so until it is I have no desire to worship invisible friends of the bibles the world over. I am sure at one time people of the world needed such stories but for me and a growing population such things are no longer needed.

The psychology of religion is fascinating itself like how followers become offended when you do not believe in their god. God for them is an expression of themselves so they take it personally when we do not accept the ideology of gods they feel rejected themselves.

There has been no other time in history where the human population has reached the numbers we are at today so as a species we are doing pretty well maybe to well as resources will become stretched even further however that is a topic unto itself.

Originally posted by Tennessee77

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Tennessee77

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Ok. So do you believe that humans have always existed in the physical form that we exist in today?

Yes, 100%.

I have no idea of the genetic makeup of our original ancestors (Adam & Eve) but I can only assume that they had a very diverse set of genes and their offspring would have been a product of some of their recessive genes.

Ok. But this is pretty easy information to come by. It is an exact science that can trace these genes back much much farther than the form which we exist in now. Look up mitochondrial DNA. It has been proven without a doubt that we have evolved from other species. The info is out there. That much is conclusive. So for you to deny this actually is an effort to stay ignorant on the subject.

Humans have evolved from other species but not from animals. We call the different species of humans 'races'.
It is microevolution, not macro. Mitochondrial DNA does not prove macroevolution at all.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed down from mother to child. It is very accurate for dilineating different familial lines and traces humans back way farther than the form we take today. It is proof possitive of evolution. Humans are animals.

It is not proof that we were animals.