Evolutionary Confusion

Off Topic
241

[quote]Professor X wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Maybe it helps to make a distinction between evolution and the Theory of Evolution.

This was my point. The “theory of Evolution” being taught in schools isn’t the problem. It is the teaching of it as if we have the facts to back it up that we all came from one celled organisms. That extra leap takes it out of fact. We don’t know this to be fact. It is “belief” by some in science when the truth is, we don’t know if aliens dropped us off here a few billion years ago already differentiated into different species from vertebrates to invertebrates. Why does it seem to be painful to admit that in science, we don’t know yet? Many seem to want to claim some scientific victory as if they have trumped all with their insight. That has not occurred.[/quote]

Pardon, but I think you misunderstand the source of the political tension. Science never finds it painful to admit that something is not known yet, indeed Science rejoices, then busies itself.

The problem is entirely that Intelligent Design (as yet formulated) cannot be entertained as a scientific theory, yet some will insist that it should be presented in that capacity. This does very direct violence to the scientific enterprise.

Last time, the Creationists screwed the pooch by denying the fact of evolution in attacking the Theory of Evolution. They came acropper. Now the Intelligent Design theorists are screwing the pooch by trying to politic a supernatural conjecture into the stature of an hypothesis, without providing the necessary paraphernalia and development.

This is violence against science. The poor pooch objects to being screwed, it is that simple.

On a purely personal note, I strongly object to the use of my tax dollars for teaching supernatural conjectures as if they were scientific hypotheses.

242

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It is “belief” by some in science when the truth is, we don’t know if aliens dropped us off here a few billion years ago already differentiated into different species from vertebrates to invertebrates.

Again with the alien thing.

http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/lectures/lecture9.html

The link above shows the origin of the vertebrates from the invertebrates in a “cladogram”. This way, you can see over the span of time, how differing body structures originated at different times.

The alien thingy is cute, but the aliens would also have had to alter the carbon-dating of the different fossils, bury the skeletons and other fossils in different rock strata, etc. Do you see what I’m getting at here? The Chariots of the Gods fantasy is REALLY reaching, especially when we have already figured out something else (Evolutionary Theory) which makes sense, and doesn’t rely on wild conjecture.[/quote]

You keep throwing teaching points at me as if I didn’t already take those classes. “Hemichordates” sure brought back memories of late night study sessions. I am still trying to figure out why you are pressing this as if transition between species has been proven as fact. I understand the theory and even support some of it. I am not denying the evidence of evolution. I have been speaking in very precise terms that you seem to be leap frogging over. Why not just admit it?

243

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You keep throwing teaching points at me as if I didn’t already take those classes. “Hemichordates” sure brought back memories of late night study sessions. I am still trying to figure out why you are pressing this as if transition between species has been proven as fact. I understand the theory and even support some of it. I am not denying the evidence of evolution. I have been speaking in very precise terms that you seem to be leap frogging over. Why not just admit it?[/quote]

I’m not leapfrogging anything, Prof. You say you understand evolution, took it in school, etc. But you still hold on to the idea that evolution somehow HASN’T explained in easy terms the transition of one species to another? That’s very odd… to repeat myself from my first post in this thread. Interspecies evolution is fact. Why not just admit it?

244

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Evolution is a fact, it is observed (yes, inter-species evolution also has been observed, even in vertebrates). Remember that “species” in the end is simply whatever the taxonomists say it is on the basis of morphology; lots of species can interbreed.

Thank you for clarifying. This passage above is particularly relevant, as it looks like some of us are confused about what the definition of “species” is.

[/quote]

How could you not be confused? I don?t think there is a clear definition, nor do I think there can be.

245

[quote]orion wrote:
How could you not be confused? I don?t think there is a clear definition, nor do I think there can be.
[/quote]

That’s just the thing, a species denomination is a taxonomical thing, not some biological rule. When you get higher up in the Taxonomy, especially the “Family” of different lifeforms, the differences become striking. Telling apart two similar genii of moths, for example, can be a pain in the ass.

What I think we can all reasonably agree on is “speciation by gradual adaptation”. A concept first discussed by Lamarck, and then refined somewhat by Darwin.

246

[quote]Professor X wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Maybe it helps to make a distinction between evolution and the Theory of Evolution.

This was my point. The “theory of Evolution” being taught in schools isn’t the problem. It is the teaching of it as if we have the facts to back it up that we all came from one celled organisms. That extra leap takes it out of fact. We don’t know this to be fact. It is “belief” by some in science when the truth is, we don’t know if aliens dropped us off here a few billion years ago already differentiated into different species from vertebrates to invertebrates. Why does it seem to be painful to admit that in science, we don’t know yet? Many seem to want to claim some scientific victory as if they have trumped all with their insight. That has not occurred.[/quote]

I don?t get your problem. It says right there in the big fat headline “THEORY of evolution”. Nobody is trying to hide anything or to mislead anyone.

I think a solution to this would be to teach children the basic concepts of epistemology from an early stage on, that should give them the means to determine for themselves what is fact and what is fiction.

247

I know! Why don’t we just have a vote to decide how life came into being!

I’m positive that the universe will be kind enough to retroactively reorganize itself to accomodate our inflexible viewpoints.

Any takers?

248

[quote]Soco wrote:
I know! Why don’t we just have a vote to decide how life came into being!

I’m positive that the universe will be kind enough to retroactively reorganize itself to accomodate our inflexible viewpoints.

Any takers?

[/quote]

I vote that we keep asking questions, and never stop learning. That way, the universe doesn’t have to change shit. It’s fine just the way it is.

249

I stopped asking myself these questions the day I realized any belief system is just a filter for the mind. The question then becomes … which one is the less restrictive?

Oh, and dont worry too much about the future or the past. Youre only here for some very small portion of time (relatively to the big scheme of things). Focus on people, on what you can do and change, and fuck the rest. That`s pretty much it. The Tao of Dan.

250

[quote]DPH wrote:
IHateGymMorons wrote:
What’s wrong with this picture? I just can’t figure it out.

All the various apes in the world aren’t any smarter nor do they look any different today than they did 10,000 years ago. They haven’t developed more advanced tools, they haven’t started eating meat, they haven’t started building huts… They’re still swinging from trees.

What’s so different between the early similarly sized early human brains and the apes that we can develop and evolve, yet they can’t.

You can teach a chimp to do some amazing things which proves it isn’t dumb, so why can’t it use this same intelligence to evolve?

The reason why evolution will never be proved is because you’ll never be able to conduct an experiment on it. You can’t just get together a bunch of apes and watch them turn into homosapiens. The best you can do is speculate.

To be honest, some of the skulls at the Smithsonian don’t look much different than skulls of modern day African tribesman - swept back brow and the whole bit. So after millions of years of evolution everyone’s skull still looks different when comparing various races.

I really doubt those dating methods - simply because they have been known to constantly contradict each other depending on what method you use. I’m talking millions of years contradiction. Yeah, we got this down to an exact science don’t we.

What was it about the last few thousand years that caused such a rush and acceleration in learning and social advancment. What was the factor that caused us to go millions of years as ape morons, then all the sudden we can walk, talk, learn, and invent in a matter of a blink of an eye. 5000-6000 years is truly a blink of an eye for the evolutionary time frame we’ve all been taught. Honestly I’d like to know what magic evolutionary process caused this exponential advancement?

If man slowly evolved from chimps, how come only some of us evolved and we still have unchanged chimps?

Did early man have sex with chimps? Did they produce truly have chimp baby’s that had extra body hair and long arms?

Out of all the classes and lectures I’ve taken and heard on this no one has answered this. I don’t mean to mock anyone or the info, I just want some possible answers. I’m frustrated with this. Thanks!

it pains me greatly to read such an abysmally ignorant post…

I’m not going to argue whether or not evolution is factual (I don’t fucking care if evolution happened or not), but it’s as if you know absolutely NOTHING about the theory…

your questions are like that of a small child who has been dropped on his head once too often…

hell, you’ve got the entire internet at your disposal to investigate the theory and yet you come to a bodybuilding/supplement web site to ask you infantile questions…

have you ever considered cracking open a book on the subject?

I would suggest some reading material but I’m not at all sure that you would be able to comprehend any of it…

I guess no one pays model/musicians to be intelligent…[/quote]

Dude… don’t be so harsh…He just wants to discuss his own ideas, he’s not flaming anyone.

251

[quote]pookie wrote:
I’m beginning to wonder what’s the point of these threads.

It may be because the info is so confusing and often contradictory. For example, some literature cites caffeine as being antagonistic to creatine use, others say to combine the two for optimal performance. The FDA, whom most people trust for reasonble info on nutrition prove that they themselves don’t have clue by changing RDA’s and Food Pyramids every other day.
My point is, all human knowledge is transient. New information is always coming to light. What may be regarded as Truth right now may be laugable by our grandchildren.
Some people realize this, which may be why these threads pop up so often.

252

[quote]heimdall wrote:
It may be because the info is so confusing and often contradictory.[/quote]

Yes, but these threads are not started in a spirit of interested scientific inquiry. They are started by fundamentalists who have a bone to pick with science because this or that theory happens to contradict their beloved Scripture.

The modus operandi is pretty much always the same. They post their “understanding” (in the most generous sense of that word) of the theory, instantly showing that they’ve never even read about the real theory, except on some apologetic’s site. They follow that with old, already refuted arguments that they pretty much cut-and-paste from the sames sites.

Basically, they seem to be seeking validation (not sure why?) for their backward thinking from like-minded persons. If you give them sources, web based or otherwise, they aren’t interested. They’re not going to read Darwin, Dawkins or Sagan or any actual scientist involved in the branch of science they’re attacking.

253

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You keep throwing teaching points at me as if I didn’t already take those classes. “Hemichordates” sure brought back memories of late night study sessions. I am still trying to figure out why you are pressing this as if transition between species has been proven as fact. I understand the theory and even support some of it. I am not denying the evidence of evolution. I have been speaking in very precise terms that you seem to be leap frogging over. Why not just admit it?

I’m not leapfrogging anything, Prof. You say you understand evolution, took it in school, etc. But you still hold on to the idea that evolution somehow HASN’T explained in easy terms the transition of one species to another? That’s very odd… to repeat myself from my first post in this thread. Interspecies evolution is fact. Why not just admit it?[/quote]

Why not just give some specific examples of, say, ANY point you’ve made so far? ( and other condascending BS)