 |
| |
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Kid, I can see various issues here. Please, try to listen instead of reacting. You have a couple of serious logic gaps here, plus what the theory of evolution actually says.
First, claiming support by the number of people sharing a belief only shows - how many people share this belief. For example, to be incendiary - how many people polled in the US considered Native Americans inferior, or Blacks, Asians, etc. up through WW2? Plug in other countries and their favorite group to hate and you can get similar results, i.e. gypsies across much of Europe.
However, this gets into WHAT occurs, it does not get into WHY this occurs. Case in point, there were good reasons Gypsies were disliked across much of Europe - and bad reasons. Getting into those reasons is again factual, and can “reasonably” be discussed.
However, when you start to argue over whether they were GOOD reasons, you get into areas of belief and emotional reactions. How does this apply to evolution - actually punctuated equilibrium, but more on that later.
Evolution does not attempt to tell you WHY these things occur, only how. Now some Scientists will try to use the factual part to justify their own agendas concerning why. One of the best cases, in a related field, was Isaac Asimov. He was an atheist, and attempted to use/misuse modern physics (quantum froth theory, if you want to Google it) to justify he beliefs. It was actually kind of amusing.
Do you consider mathematics unproven? Unless you do, here is some of the evidence that we evolved from some common ancestor. Now, this does not say if a Divine hand or random mutation got that ball rolling, and caused a very fortuitous series of mutations to create modern man. Here we go.
Large areas of DNA are capable of undergoing random changes, without significant changes to the organism. The rate these areas can change has been measured, very precisely. Culturing cells has provided a very good baseline, which has been verified in studies of adults whose genealogy can go back centuries. Pure facts.
With the various genome projects, we have been able to sequence this DNA not only in humans, but in various species. This provides us with another baseline measurement. Note, measurement. Again, fact.
As noted by other posters, we have observed speciation and mutation in modern species, including humans (various genetic diseases that track families, think hemophilia and sickle cell anemia). So we know not only that this process occurs, we can now look directly at the DNA and see how it occurs.
Now, mathematicians have taken these facts, and using modern statistical formulas done things like taken the Chimpanzee and Human genomes, and compared them, and found out that they were both very similar, and tracked the differences. Based on all the observed data above, they draw a conclusion - not a fact but based on facts- and determine how long ago the two species had a common ancestor. Now, that is not pure fact, put it is not simple conjecture, either. They have the identical areas, they have the changed areas, and they know the rates at which they change.
They base their projection on all the facts above. This can be adjusted as new information is discovered that permits them to refine their estimates of the point at which the species diverged. Note - the facts (called evidence) show that the genomes are I believe the number is 98% the same. That is fact. The mathematic model - this is not a directly observable fact, but is based on the available facts - shows the point, and again I am doing this from memory - that Humans and Chimps diverged six million years ago.
If you want to argue that a mechanistic universe set the various factors that the scientists theorize caused the divergence to occur were caused by God, or be a simple mechanistic universe, that is a reasonable - note, reason versus faith or emotional reaction - disagreement. But denying the facts is simply silly. The Creationists were totally in denial of those facts, and the Intelligent design people instead use pseudo-science, i.e. not facts but numerous distortions dressed up as facts - to make there points.
The Catholic Church, not exactly a liberal icon, has understood this difference for several centuries, Galileo not withstanding. Mendel, who helped get some of the most basic standards of inheritance codified, was a Monk. Several prominent astronomers were also Monks or Priests. However, they only described HOW things worked, and with utter confidence understood that the HOW could actually be a reflection of God's infinite creativity.
There was a critical mutation they have discovered that was critical in the development of the modern human. A gene that permitted the heavy, extremely strong jaw muscles to develop in apes instead mutated into a form similar to muscular dystrophy (we have sequenced the gene’s involved in that, which is why they could recognize the mutation – I am oversimplifying slightly, but this post is already a bit long). The weakened jaw muscles basically permit the brain pan to grow larger. It let us get big brains, which let us get smarter, i.e. become man.
Now did God intervene and cause that mutation to occur? I simply don’t know, being a Deist I doubt it. Note, this is not a fact. I noted by BELIEF – Deist – and then identified my own “Why” argument. I could very well be wrong, this has NOTHING to do with whether evolution per se is fact. You may be a Theist, and argue God did indeed directly cause that mutation. However, the mutation was necessary, and it did happen. That is my issue with Creation so-called Science. They are trying to combine religion/philosophy, i.e. “Why” and then mix them up with Science, i.e. “How”.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Do you consider mathematics unproven? Unless you do, here is some of the evidence that we evolved from some common ancestor.
|
Ok
quote:
Large areas of DNA are capable of undergoing random changes, without significant changes to the organism. The rate these areas can change has been measured, very precisely. Culturing cells has provided a very good baseline, which has been verified in studies of adults whose genealogy can go back centuries. Pure facts.
|
Ok, I knew this already.
quote:
With the various genome projects, we have been able to sequence this DNA not only in humans, but in various species. This provides us with another baseline measurement. Note, measurement. Again, fact.
|
Ok, I knew that too.
quote:
As noted by other posters, we have observed speciation and mutation in modern species, including humans (various genetic diseases that track families, think hemophilia and sickle cell anemia). So we know not only that this process occurs, we can now look directly at the DNA and see how it occurs.
|
Ok, ...
quote:
Now, mathematicians have taken these facts, and using modern statistical formulas done things like taken the Chimpanzee and Human genomes, and compared them, and found out that they were both very similar, and tracked the differences. Based on all the observed data above, they draw a conclusion - not a fact but based on facts- and determine how long ago the two species had a common ancestor.
|
Here's the problem. You're just assuming that human beings and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor because they have similar DNA. What proof is estimating when when the new speciation occured? You're missing something critical. You're showing me how something could have happened. Nothing here shows me that it did.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
There is no scientific evidence or method that disagrees with what I believe. The only belief that I have expressed is that there is no scientific proof that human beings evolved from other species. You're just wrong here. I firmly believe in science where it is possible to prove things and also where it is possible to influence my decision. However, that has nothing to do with the problem that I see with people who use the scientific method as a tool to bully people into believing like them about things that they can't prove. |
The scientific method isn't a tool for bullying, it's a tool for discovering things about the physical world we inhabit.
You're confusing religious belief systems and metaphysics with the scientific method and physics.
It cannot make you believe there is no god, nor can it make you believe there is a god- it is not a method for proving or disproving the validity of your 'faith' in god.
quote:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
|
http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm just more skeptical of the idea that man evolved from apes. The idea seems much more incredible that the idea that it isn't true. Without 100% proof I can't make myself believe it. I don't think of it as faith, but more of an innate idea. |
Modern man, homo sapiens didn't evolve from apes, we evolved from homo erectus if i am not mistaken.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
Koko the ape, the one they taught to speak in sign language, signed that it believed in an afterlife of sorts. I'm going to look for a link. It has been a long time since I read that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Science is not a belief system. |
It depends. Science is not inherently a belief system, but an individual can become a zealous believer in what science says. I've seen people vigorously saying that the Big Bang was The Truth (non-scientists, obviously).
Science is very different from religions and spiritualities, but it has at least one similarity with them: it is a system aimed at explaining the world. It does an infinitely better job at it than the spiritualities, but, like any other explanation system, a zealot can make it into a belief system.
quote:
The only similarity between science and religion is certain parts of scientific models are taken as true without proof. These are called postulates. However, everything else is just as different as you can get. |
Actually, I would even differentiate between the postulates and the religious beliefs  . A postulate is convenient, while a religious belief is holy. If the scientific community becomes unhappy with a postulate for whatever reason, it will change or remove it. Such a thing cannot be said for most religious beliefs.
quote:
In science, people are encouraged to question and be skeptical, in religion, questions are frowned upon and skepticism is a taboo. In science, observations and facts hold primacy. If models don't fit the models are adjusted. In religion, doctrines hold primacy. If reality doesn't fit doctrines reality can go down a flushing toilet. |
Absolutely. This is the reason why I respect science much more than religion. However, science can be a victim of its own success, and can its "vulgar" form can become gospel to some. This is why we should care about two things:
1. Some people (plenty of non-scientists) will strongly believe in current famous scientific conclusions. I think this is the danger SpencerH warned about : any guy with a schmock, a diploma and good communication skills can have followers that will zealously defend his theses (I'll give you more details about the guy if you ask me).
------------------------------------------------------------
2. There is also another kind belief linked to science, which is more complex to explain. I hope I'll be clear. It's the belief that the scientific method has the potential to explain everything in the universe. That's what St Leo (and probably quite a few polytubbies) believe in.
The fundamental aspect of science is the systematic observation and analysis of reality, in order to explain in the most accurate fashion how reality works. It's the only scientific thing that won't change. Theories may change, postulates may change, particular methods may change. But the idea that an explanation can be found through systematic observation and analysis is here to stay.
Thanks to this idea, science is acceptable at explaining the world, whereas religions aren't.
But even though science does work for many things, it has a great limitation: we cannot have a perfect understanding of the phenomena we study.
The systematic observation of a phenomenon requires a measurement. The systematic analysis of the observations requires an abstract model (often a mathematical one). Measurements and mathematics are human inventions. They're completely abstract. They have nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with our way to approach reality.
Since we can't do science without them, we are doomed to use these artificialities. Despite Science's mission of observing the world in the most neutral fashion, science still depends on human constructs. And this is why science cannot perfectly understand reality, because reality isn't a mathematical construct. Just like reality isn't a divine construct.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that science and religion are the same thing. Unlike religion, science has actual results: We are getting better and better at predicting the weather; We have pretty good models to predict gravity 
I used these examples on purpose: there are plenty of unknowns in meteorology and in gravity, yet science can provide fairly good models already. That's infinitely better than what religion managed in millenia Does science currently give perfect models? No. Does it give workable models? Yes.
If people remain aware that science is a tool for us to better understand our surroundings, then they're not "believers" in science.
OTOH, if people believe that Science is the One Key that can explain our whole universe, then they're believers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MosesPresley
Koko the ape, the one they taught to speak in sign language, signed that it believed in an afterlife of sorts. I'm going to look for a link. It has been a long time since I read that. |
I can't find a link to the exact story that I read, but I did find this which somewhat corroborates what I said.
"She laughs at her own jokes and those of others. She cries when hurt or left alone, screams when frightened or angered. She talks about her feelings, using words like 'happy', 'sad', 'afraid', 'enjoy', 'eager', 'frustrate', 'mad' and, quite frequently, 'love'. She grieves for those she has lost- a favourite cat who has died, a friend who has gone away. She can talk about what happens when one dies, but she becomes fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death or the death of her companions. She displays a wonderful gentleness with kittens and other small animals. She has even expressed empathy for others seen only in pictures."
http://www.animal-rights-library.co...patterson01.htm
She's not so much aware of an afterlife as she is aware of the finality of death.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
That's not hard for me to believe. The hard part is believing that an intelligent, spiritual species evolving from an plain animal. |
Why is that so hard to believe? The alternatives to humanity evoloving from other animals is that humanity always existed in it's present form or that humanity was created. There is a third "alterntiave" which only sets the previous question aside, and does not answer it, which is that we are not native to Earth. Given the genetic evidence and the fact that several species of microbes depend upon humans to complete their life cycles, we can discount the latter. The first is obviously malarkey, since that would mean that humans would be found in the ancient fossil record, as well as being able to survive planetary impacts, snowball Earth events, etc. That leaves creation as the only possible alternative to evolution. There is no evidence to show creation, whether by extra-terrastrial beings or divine ones.
The fossil record, on the other hand, shows a clear "progression" of species, from rodent to primate, from simple primates to man-ape, the split between man and ape, the evolution of man from one homo species to the next.
And please describe what you mean by spiritual.
Also, I would note that one of the cornerstones of Marxist theory is the Theory of Evolution.
edit: fixed typo
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 16-08-2005 at 00:29
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005 16:53
Typo.
|