Evolution Theory.

Liam Byrne · 28-07-2010 09:42AM

Doc wrote: »

More recent scholarship suggests that "take" may be better for translation than "covet."

So even what was said to be set in stone is still up for interpretation...

Interesting, because "take" seems to be open to interpretation itself.

I mean, you can't "take" something that....er......wants to come with you ?

sligopark · 28-07-2010 10:08AM

Ush1 wrote: »

Which theories exactly? Scientific theories rely on evidence, not faith.

big bang, bose higson particle, multiple universes etc etc

YFlyer wrote: »

Perhaps the human central nervous system has become so complex that it is able to express higher levels of consciousness.

This is something I used to fall back on (including quantum coherence in microtubules) but it does not adequately explain things personally for me although it goes a long well to opening up the explanation of the expression of epigenetics

sligopark wrote: »

for me the theory of evolution lacks the hypotheses discussion of the sudden jump in consciousness and the ethical moral decision making missing in animals as well as the dismissal of discussion the presence of life force / spirit that many believe is inherent or innate in each of us

Einhard wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.

sorry what I mean to say was that the theory of evolution is all fine and well, and I do believe we are evolving (based on experience and the passage of experience into epigenetics and therefore genetics) but to base a theory of evolution upon the commonality of bony material based upon progressive locomotive and postural evolution instead of asking the most poignant question defining humanity from animals ie if evolution from animal is true when didthe presence of consciousness and the preponderence of ethical and moral considerations in accordance with our decision making arise?

Where did our enlightment come from?

jackiebaron · 28-07-2010 10:09AM

R_H_C_P wrote: »

Thats what I dont get, you could prove it to them and be it real they still wouldnt bother taking a look at it. Which is fine, people can believe what they want.

It's called cognitive dissonance. People can't bring themselves to accept that they got it so wrong for so long so they dig their heels in.

A Primal Nut · 28-07-2010 10:11AM

amacachi wrote: »

Evolution is just a theory, it's not a fact, just like gravity.

Both evolution and gravity are both theories and facts. Can't believe people are still using the "just a theory line." They are theories which are also factual.

Ush1 · 28-07-2010 10:18AM

sligopark wrote: »

big bang, bose higson particle, multiple universes etc etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory#Observational_evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics

Again, scientific theories are based on weighing up evidence. If they ain't, that ain't science I'm afraid.

A Primal Nut · 28-07-2010 10:22AM

sligopark wrote: »

sorry what I mean to say was that the theory of evolution is all fine and well, and I do believe we are evolving (based on experience and the passage of experience into epigenetics and therefore genetics) but to base a theory of evolution upon the commonality of bony material based upon progressive locomotive and postural evolution instead of asking the most poignant question defining humanity from animals ie if evolution from animal is true when didthe presence of consciousness and the preponderence of ethical and moral considerations in accordance with our decision making arise?

Where did our enlightment come from?

There was no exact date but it would have been a gradual process over 1000's of years.

Ethics and morals would have evolved in response to punishment. Early humans evolved the ability the murder each other, perhaps because it benifited them in the search for food or mates. Natural Selection might have favoured this in the beginning. Other humans started exacting revenge for murders by other tribes or people, perhaps as a show of strength to stop future murders. Natural Selection would favour these people as they were less likely to be murdered if they or their tribes fought back. The same would apply to individuals within tribes who might alienate themselves by committing murder. Then the humans who could best weigh up when to commit murder and when the consequences might be too great, were selected. This was how our empathy would have began. as humans were selected by their ability not to anger other humans by doing evil things.

However if you are a great dictator with a lot of power, you generally see no consequences of murder and ethics/empathy go out the window; which is the main reason why every person given that much power turns into a mass murderer. Look at concentration camp guards; normal people suddenly giving a load of power and how many rejected it? Very few; far more went beyond their orders.

Our perception of morals comes from our subconscious fear of the consequences doing evil things might cause us: punishment (justice system in the modern day) alienation, etc.

I was just using murder as one example. Now we've evolved to get our morals, ethics and values from those around us and our culture, which is why sex has often being as seen as bad in human societies, even though this is the opposite of what you would expect by natural selection. It comes down to the fact that people in power suppressed people sexually in order to attempt to turn them into robots following orders. The first thing any organised religion does is suppress people's sexuality. Its not a lot different to a farmer castrating his cow or a parasite castrating a crab. (ok that has more to do with turning them into meat machines, but certainly bullocks are also easier to manage than bulls because they lose their aggression/rebelliousness, etc).

gbee · 28-07-2010 10:35AM

R_H_C_P wrote: »

Watched a programme and they said that Darwins Theory of Evolution has been proven. Which dsiproves a "god". Right?
.

You can only prove something with evidence of its existence. Unforunatly, absence of proof of existence, or extinction, does not prove that it was never there.

Our universe is a strange thing, once upon a time a long time ago where was gas, lot of gas, suddenly there was a spontaneous spark and the big-bang occurred and created all things.

However, it was vastly more than seven days and the environmental conditions had to be exactly correct for our life form to emerge.

We live under the cloud of destruction, which at times actually aid us in our survival. In our most recent past, a series of holocausts, which cased a series of global extinction events paved the way for man to emerge ... if that meteor had not hit the earth 65 million years ago, if the Yellostone Super Volcano had not erupted and if the CO2 gas had not been released in vast quantities from under the sea ... the dinosaurs would still be ruling the earth.

So, where did God fit in here? He or She, could exist and they made a beautiful earth populated with fantastic animals and fauna and fish, then it was all destroyed ~ but that same destruction allowed us to develop.

Was this a plan? Like as if he [God] seeded the Earth and legged it for hundreds of billions of years as the Earth experiment cured. Upon his return he was furious to see all these monsters [dinosaurs instead of man] and he destroyed the planet's surface with fire, smoke, ash and nuclear winters.

Or was it just one of those violent smashes, smashes that had happened previously as well, the earth has been totally destroyed once at least and has had global extinctions more than once ~ and it will happen again ~ but will we be here for the next one?

Unknown, we are losing our Moon, our Sun is middle aged and will destroy us ~ frightening.

There is still enough coincidences left for people to believe that a supernatural power has intervened in the shaping of the billions of circumstances necessary for men to be walking the Earth, having evolved from lower lifeforms.

philologos · 28-07-2010 10:35AM

R_H_C_P wrote: »

Watched a programme and they said that Darwins Theory of Evolution has been proven. Which dsiproves a "god". Right?

Wrong. One can believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and that life evolved from simplex organisms into more complex organisms. Indeed, such an act of evolution could be argued to be a part of Creation.

sligopark · 28-07-2010 10:37AM

Ush1 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory#Observational_evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics

Again, scientific theories are based on weighing up evidence. If they ain't, that ain't science I'm afraid.

Good point but science is a belief system based upon consistent theory extrapolation upon selective evidence.

Often controversial stuff is thrown aside by vested interests or simply because it doesn't fit (for example space geodetic measurements that would back up earth expansion tectonics).

And by the way the statement "scientific theories are based on weighing up evidence" could be applied to religion: religious edicts are based upon moral quandries and ethical considerations against the evidence of consequence

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Our perception of morals comes from our subconscious fear of the consequences doing evil things might cause us: punishment (justice system in the modern day) alienation, etc.

well made point but doesn't explain virtuous behaviour (say like the dala lama etc) but for the masses yes perhaps applicable

how would it explain this lack of consciousness in higher able animals whose do have the same computing ability within their nervous systems - would some animals then be afforded rights on the basis of their 'social responsibility?'

Cool Mo D · 28-07-2010 10:52AM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Both evolution and gravity are both theories and facts. Can't believe people are still using the "just a theory line." They are theories which are also factual.

There are subtle differences though. The fact that there is evolution is based on directly observing creatures adapt and change based on their environment. The fact of gravity is based on observing that entities with mass are attracted to each other.

The theory of evolution and the theory of gravity are both attempts to come up with a rigorous scientific explanation for the facts that have been observed. For example, we now know that the theory of gravity does not provide a complete explanation for how the universe appears to act. Yet no-one is saying that gravity is not real - it is the theory that must be adapted to fit the facts.

On another note, it always really annoys me when people say that Newton discovered gravity. Did they think that no-one noticed gravity before then? He came up with the original theory of gravity, he didn't discover it.

Ush1 · 28-07-2010 10:53AM

sligopark wrote: »

Good point but science is a belief system based upon consistent theory extrapolation upon selective evidence.

Often controversial stuff is thrown aside by vested interests or simply because it doesn't fit (for example space geodetic measurements that would back up earth expansion tectonics).

And by the way the statement "scientific theories are based on weighing up evidence" could be applied to religion: religious edicts are based upon moral quandries and ethical considerations against the evidence of consequence

Well any theory is subject to any form of rigours.

If the wrong fossil from the wrong period turned up in the wrong place, natural selection would crumble like a card house. If any organism was discovered to be irreducibly complex, again, natural selection would be disproved. However what actually is happening is that evidence natural selection and evolution grows to the point where DNA makes it as clear as code from a computer.

"religious edicts are based upon moral quandries and ethical considerations against the evidence of consequence" This sounds like trying to apply science to religion. You can put forth any ideas from religion as a scientific theory ; existence of God, virgin birth, reanimating the dead etc...and based on evidence come to a conclusion if it's likely or very unlikely.

You are right also, that there is vested interest from various corners of science in certain ideas but science at its core is not afraid to be disproven.

Sea Sharp · 28-07-2010 11:19AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Wrong. One can believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and that life evolved from simplex organisms into more complex organisms. Indeed, such an act of evolution could be argued to be a part of Creation.

But you don't need for there to be a god to explain the heavens and the earth.

Kasabian · 28-07-2010 11:22AM

With all the arguments for and against , I still believe in God , it's called faith.

Keeps me ticking over day to day.

philologos · 28-07-2010 11:24AM

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

But you don't need for there to be a god to explain the heavens and the earth.

What exists makes very little difference without a coherent reason, or cause as to why it is exists.

I find positions which argue for the existence of the universe and everything that is in it without consideration of God to be non-sensical.

Kurtosis · 28-07-2010 11:27AM

sligopark wrote: »

but to base a theory of evolution upon the commonality of bony material based upon progressive locomotive and postural evolution instead of asking the most poignant question defining humanity from animals ie if evolution from animal is true when didthe presence of consciousness and the preponderence of ethical and moral considerations in accordance with our decision making arise?

I think that's because bones make good fossils. Consciousness, ethics and morals do not tend to fossilise well.

sensibleken · 28-07-2010 11:33AM

The best evidence for evolution are the collection of half evolved that have almost perfectly adapted to their enviroment but have a long way to go.

The whale: used to be walking around, decided to go for a swim. sorted out the whole flipper thing. but still cant breath under water and has to hang around the surface like a chump!

The plaice: seriously! this fish is what evolution can do to you if your just lazy. lie down too much and youll have two eyes on one side of your face and a sideways mouth.

give em about a million years and they might get it

Ush1 · 28-07-2010 11:36AM

Jakkass wrote: »

What exists makes very little difference without a coherent reason, or cause as to why it is exists.

I find positions which argue for the existence of the universe and everything that is in it without consideration of God to be non-sensical.

Why does God need to be considered exactly?

And please, give me your definition of God also.

sheesh · 28-07-2010 11:39AM

Alot of the christian churches accept evolution as how man came into being some don't

I dont think god exists either. but to think that people don't get anything out of religion i think is in correct.

every major culture in history has had a religious element in it. obviously it serves some role in stabilising society.

I find it laughable that people think that we have reached or can ever reach a point where religion is not an important part of the society.

I find the smugness of some of the comments on these kind of threads annoying.

Sea Sharp · 28-07-2010 11:44AM

Jakkass wrote: »

What exists makes very little difference without a coherent reason, or cause as to why it is exists.

Reality doesn't care if you understand it or not.

Jakkass wrote: »

I find positions which argue for the existence of the universe and everything that is in it without consideration of God to be non-sensical.

I would argue the exact opposite.
For me, explanations that include an omnipotent being that displays the same emotions as humans are nonsensical and a little obnoxious.

the_syco · 28-07-2010 11:50AM

genericguy wrote: »

btw there's no god, and you're related to king kong.

Four posts in, and we're already on the"yore ma" jokes... :rolleyes:

fearcruach · 28-07-2010 12:00PM

sligopark wrote: »

big bang, bose higson particle, multiple universes etc etc

These are ideas formulated from evidence.

For example, the Higss-Boson particle is predicted by the standard model of Physics. So the evidence is that something is missing in the equation. A Higgs Boson particle balances the equation (like Neo

). So its not based on faith at all.

philologos · 28-07-2010 12:19PM

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Reality doesn't care if you understand it or not.

It depends if what you hold is really reality or not doesn't it? :pac: - Assuming that God isn't a part of reality from the get go isn't going to get us very far in discussion surely?

Terry · 28-07-2010 12:20PM

Evolution is based upon observable facts.
Religion is based on faith.

Science wins this battle.

Also, Adam and Eve were incestuous at best. Kiddie fiddlers at worst.
Don't like that being pointed out?
I don't care. I'll say whatever I want about my own ancestors.

philologos · 28-07-2010 12:22PM

Terry wrote: »

Evolution is based upon observable facts.
Religion is based on faith.

Science wins this battle.

There isn't a battle to be fought really! It is entirely possible to believe, and still regard science.

Terry · 28-07-2010 12:25PM

Jakkass wrote: »

There isn't a battle to be fought really! It is entirely possible to believe, and still regard science.

If you are to argue as to which is factual, then science wins.
There are no facts whatsoever to prove the existence of a supreme being. None.
Analogous fairy tales are not factual.

philologos · 28-07-2010 12:26PM

Terry wrote: »

If you are to argue as to which is factual, then science wins.
There are no facts whatsoever to prove the existence of a supreme being. None.
Analogous fairy tales are not factual.

It is possible that both can be true, that's my point. There is no contest, just because there is literally no contest to be had.

MingulayJohnny · 28-07-2010 12:29PM

1) Arguing for and against the existence of an infinite being\state of consciousness that transcends space and time with linear logic is futile. At the end of the day it comes down to personal belief and experience which is impossible to quantify anyway.

2) Darwinian theory of ( macro ) evolution has not been conclusively proven whereas micro evolution is self evident. Why is there is a lack of fossil evidence to demonstrate a primate to human species jump i.e. the 'Missing link'. How can a primates have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46 and yet we are so much more advanced. Do primates have dormant chromosomes?.

3) How do humans have over 4000 potential genetic defects when genome wide defects are rare to nonexistent in wild or natural species?. If we evolved from primates should we not have much superior physical strength , fatty tissue similarities , sexual cycles?.

For me there's just too many holes in the straight macro evolution theory with it's species jumps especially considering the lack of fossil evidence in this regard.

Sea Sharp · 28-07-2010 12:33PM

Jakkass wrote: »

It depends if what you hold is really reality or not doesn't it? :pac: - Assuming that God isn't a part of reality from the get go isn't going to get us very far in discussion surely?

Well then we can discuss why god is needed from the get-go.
Why does adding an omnipotent personality, whose actions (according to your bible) can be based on love and anger, make more sense to you?

28-07-2010 12:35PM

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

2) Darwinian theory of evolution has not been conclusively proven

Theories don't get proven. A theory is as good as it gets.
If you don't even know what a scientific theory is go off and read some real information

Des Carter · 28-07-2010 12:39PM

Why do people have such a simplified view of God?

I mean if God did create everything etc then surely he would be more than a being in the sky. The only reason why people have this view is because of a group of old pervy men preaching from a really old heavily censored book.

I mean if you want a God vs Science debate and use the churches teachings for the God argument Science would win hands down every time but just cause a religious institution which was ran by people failed and doesnt make sense doesnt mean religion itself has failed.

I mean it is possible that God is more complex and we just dont understand him sort of like a robot would never understand humans

Evolution Theory.

Comments