In the Beginning...

[abradley]

Ah, you're not up to date with the latest in biology. (Latest being everything since 1860.) Interesting. FYI, evolution has been a scientific theory since within a year of Darwin's publication of Origin of Species. And scientific theory means that [B]you may consider both evolution and relativity fact.[/B] If to you it is not, that only means you're lacking in knowledge.

Yes, ''you may' but I don't. (leaving Relativity out of it)

'Lacking in knowledge', are you saying I don't know everything, some think they know everything, but I don't, never have.

 

[abradley]

Well, from the person who thinks saying something is an 'unproven theory' is in any way significant, I take it as a compliment.

There is, again, no such thing as a 'proven theory.' Like, literally, no theory has ever been proven, because that's not how science works...you have proofs in math. In science you just have failure to disprove.

If I wake up tomorrow to a headline 'Theory of Evolution is proven', should I discount it because 'you can't prove a theory.'

 

[Agent327]

That headline would be about 150 years late.

Yes, ''you may' but I don't. (leaving Relativity out of it)

'Lacking in knowledge', are you saying I don't know everything, some think they know everything, but I don't, never have.

I see we're dodging the issue. We were discussing biology, the knowledge of which seems to be somewhat lacking in you. That's OK though you can catch up via google. (Here's a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

 

[abradley]

That headline would be about 150 years late.



I see we're dodging the issue. We were discussing biology, the knowledge of which seems to be somewhat lacking in you. That's OK though you can catch up via google. (Here's a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

Is that a 'Queenly we'?

I feel the 'Theory of Evolution' is not proven, are we going to make a federal case of it?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What the ancients knew would be it's own thread. I do not think that the suppression of knowledge happened only once. It has happened multiple times, and humans seem to have to discover it all over again.

So it's back to "Oh, the Babylonians totally had all this modern stuff we had, but the knowledge was suppressed so we had to start all over again" nonsense.

This first came up in another thread when I pointed out that the ancient Babylonians didn't have astronomical telescopes, that the first person known to use such a thing was Galileo, in the first decade of the 17th century. It was annoying then, and it's still annoying.

This makes no sense. It's ridiculous to claim that older civilizations copied newer civilizations, particularly when there was no temporal overlap at all. Do you honestly mean to suggest that civilizations thousands of years older than that of the Hebrews, and who were extinct by the time the Hebrews emerged as a separate civilization, copied the Hebrew myths?

That would be part of the suppression of knowledge, yes. I just finished reading the Enuma Elish that Berzerker linked to. The translated copies into English are linked in that site. It is pretty telling that in one translation, this "planet" Marduk, which the account is referring to was said to be the builder of the tower of babel in Babylon. If the account is already turning the builders of the tower into gods, then it had to be far enough away from the event to make it sound like a supernatural story. But I am not surprised because the Egyptians looked at some of their human leaders as "gods'.

The Egyptians considered their Pharaohs to be divine. That doesn't mean they actually were divine.

Your claim of "suppression" to explain away how history apparently selectively runs in reverse has reached YouTube comment-levels of nonsense. Seriously. Time, at least as humans experience it, does not run backward. We don't possess time travel, and it's sheer nonsense to say that a civilization that lived thousands of before another civilization, and with whom there was NO contemporaneous overlap, copied the newer civilization's myths.

Because if it has been completely explained away, no one would participate in it at all.

Nonsense. We've explained astrology, but people still cling to it even though there's not one shred of evidence that it works. Similarly, we've explained Santa Claus, but every year there are dozens of Santa-clad men roaming around shopping malls and street corners, kids write letters to Santa (there's actually a group of people at Canada Post who answer letters addressed to "Santa Claus, North Pole, H0H 0H0"), and some kids get confused over the concepts of praying to Jesus and writing to Santa, and they end up praying to Santa. We know that Santa is just a story told to kids and perpetuated because it's good for business, but people keep participating in it year after year.

Would you have those traits? That seems to be a very certain statement that cannot be tested, because you can not have a birth do-over. I don't believe in the stuff either, but that is not to say, I may in the future fall susceptible to it.

Of course I would have those traits. I have no reason to believe that my family would treat me any differently if I'd been born in some other month, or a couple of weeks later in the same month.

I never said that. I was addressing the way it is taught in public schools. Humans do not push a curriculum through the education board unless they believe in it. There may not be a specific vote in every single case, but the vote of popular opinion is not entirely out of the picture. The US and Canada are still pretty much democratic and the public voice is still heard or allowed to speak, even though it may not be adhered to in all cases.

Education is a provincial responsibility in Canada, and in my province there are public schools, Catholic schools, private schools, and some kids are home schooled. Evolution is on the curriculum for every single one of these systems, or at least it's supposed to be, as it's part of the provincial science curriculum. Some teachers do their very best to tap dance around it, but all they're doing is short-changing the students and making it harder for them to succeed in science classes in high school, college, and university.

 

[Agent327]

Is that a 'Queenly we'?

I feel the 'Theory of Evolution' is not proven, are we going to make a federal case of it?

Already happened. ID, 'theory of creation' or how any such nonsense may be called is not scientific and is not part of any prescribed curriculum. Those are indeed 'just theories'. Which puts them in a different category from scientific theories. In plain English: anything outside of evolution is not science.

(By the way, how you 'feel' about evolution is neither here nor there. Nor does how countless people 'feel' about the Bible relate to any scholarship on the Bible. It's the difference between opinion and fact. The reason there are so many 'opinions' to be found on the internet is just the result of too many people unwilling to be bothered to check facts before voicing their 'feelings'. You may feel the theory of gravity is somewhat flawed. That doesn't alter the fact that if you trip you fall - not upwards but down to the greater mass. You may feel that relativity can use some improvement. That doesn't alter the fact that E=mc².)

A simple way to explain evolution is by 2 examples. You eat cereals? The grains they come from can't be found in the wild. They were genetically modified by humans. That's humans making use of genetic mutation. Do you have a dog? 100,000 years ago there were no dogs. They were bred from (most likely) grey wolves. That means that all dogs, from chihuahuas to great Danes, ultimately descend from the grey wolf. Same thing as with your cereals.

And the same applies to humans as well. A couple of million years ago we weren't around. Now we are. That's evolution.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Is that a 'Queenly we'?

I feel the 'Theory of Evolution' is not proven, are we going to make a federal case of it?

By "feel" do you mean "know" or do you mean "believe"?

In this context, it makes all the difference.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

A

A simple way to explain evolution is by 2 examples. You eat cereals? The grains they come from can't be found in the wild. They were genetically modified by humans. That's humans making use of genetic mutation. Do you have a dog? 100,000 years ago there were no dogs. They were bred from (most likely) grey wolves. That means that all dogs, from chihuahuas to great Danes, ultimately descend from the grey wolf. Same thing as with your cereals.

And the same applies to humans as well. A couple of million years ago we weren't around. Now we are. That's evolution.

Genetic modification and selective breeding are an evolution?
How come some species do not evolve but stay in same form for millions of years including the apes? Is there any simple way to explain these?

 

[Lexicus]

If I wake up tomorrow to a headline 'Theory of Evolution is proven', should I discount it because 'you can't prove a theory.'

Very much so. Generally speaking people who write about science in the media don't know jack about how science works. You will never find a biology paper published in a reputable journal saying "Theory of Evolution is proven".

A
Genetic modification and selective breeding are an evolution?
How come some species do not evolve but stay in same form for millions of years including the apes? Is there any simple way to explain these?

Genetic modification and selective breeding are a type of evolution, specifically evolution through artificial or intelligent selection (rather than natural selection which is what happens in the absence of human intelligence).
There are no species that 'do not evolve', that is simply untrue. No organism exists that is not subject to selective pressures.

 

[Sommerswerd]

How come some species do not evolve but stay in same form for millions of years including the apes? Is there any simple way to explain these?

Yes, species that appear not to evolve are species who, in their current form are extremely well adapted to survive (and thus reproduce) in their environment. For a species that is already optimally suited to survive, genetic mutations do not result in increased viability/survive-ability, so genetic mutations don't perpetuate, thus the species genome remains relatively stable (this is my simplistic, non-science'y person understanding).

But you asked for a simple explanation so an even simpler way for me to imagine it... You offer kids mac and cheese and they eat it. Next time you offer mac and cheese with broccoli. If they eat it, then broccoli is now part of the meal. If they refuse then it stays mac and cheese. The species that seem to never change are the kids that will only eat mac and cheese. Mac and cheese works for them and they don't need anything else. The species that have clearly evolved are the ones who started out with mac and cheese and they are now eating thanksgiving turkey with dressing, gravy and mashed garlic potatoes.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Genetic modification and selective breeding are a type of evolution, specifically evolution through artificial or intelligent selection (rather than natural selection which is what happens in the absence of human intelligence).
There are no species that 'do not evolve', that is simply untrue. No organism exists that is not subject to selective pressures.

Well there seems to be minor modifications creating variety within a particular specie but never the type of leap that we suppose between apes and humans and that in my view is the major line of evolution. Sharks I hear have been practicaly unchanged for millenia and we cant likely expect change of apekind to catch up with humankind. Evolution seems to be many sided process ruled by laws which seem to reach beyond some blind mechanics of chance and physical utility. Virus is perhaps an organism with highest capacity for survival and adaptible to external pressure but itsnt a peak of an evolution. On the contrary only its beginning.

 

[Lexicus]

Well there seems to be minor modifications creating variety within a particular specie but never the type of leap that we suppose between apes and humans and that in my view is the major line of evolution.

What "leap between apes and humans"? Humans are apes.

Sharks I hear have been practicaly unchanged for millenia

Sharks have been around for 450 million years, millennia is not a timescale over which you'd expect any kind of major evolutionary change. In that 450 million years they have evolved and changed quite a bit.

we cant likely expect change of apekind to catch up with humankind.

Doesn't make sense on two counts: one, humans are apes, so there is no difference between humankind and apekind. Second, "catch up" is a teleological insert that's got nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution seems to be many sided process ruled by laws which seem to reach beyond some blind mechanics of chance and physical utility. Virus is perhaps an organism with highest capacity for survival and adaptible to external pressure but itsnt a peak of an evolution. On the contrary only its beginning.

Again this is teleological nonsense that has nothing to do with evolution. There is no such thing as a 'beginning' or 'peak' of evolution.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Yes, species that appear not to evolve are species who, in their current form are extremely well adapted to survive (and thus reproduce) in their environment. For a species that is already optimally suited to survive, genetic mutations do not result in increased viability/survive-ability, so genetic mutations don't perpetuate, thus the species genome remains relatively stable (this is my simplistic, non-science'y person understanding).

The problem here is that once in your environment you get a specie which "develops" totaly different kind of weapon/instrument such as human intellect as opposed to having subconscious and vital mind which we can suppose in other animal species you are no more extremely well adapted to your environment no matter what.

But you asked for a simple explanation so an even simpler way for me to imagine it... You offer kids mac and cheese and they eat it. Next time you offer mac and cheese with broccoli. If they eat it, then broccoli is now part of the meal. If they refuse then it stays mac and cheese. The species that seem to never change are the kids that will only eat mac and cheese. Mac and cheese works for them and they don't need anything else. The species that have clearly evolved are the ones who started out with mac and cheese and they are now eating thanksgiving turkey with dressing, gravy and mashed garlic potatoes.

The act of an offering of a broccoli here represents an intelligent action and this is what seems to me is likely the actual cause of what we see as an evolution - some secret intelligence behind it.

 

[abradley]

By "feel" do you mean "know" or do you mean "believe"?

In this context, it makes all the difference.

Well, I don't 'know' if it's correct or not. Then again don't really 'believe' it's been proven ... but as I posted earlier it's the best explanation (so far) IMO.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What "leap between apes and humans"? Humans are apes.

Leap between monkeys and humans.

Doesn't make sense on two counts: one, humans are apes, so there is no difference between humankind and apekind. Second, "catch up" is a teleological insert that's got nothing to do with evolution.

Fine. Lets insert 'lower apes' and 'adapt' instead.

Again this is teleological nonsense that has nothing to do with evolution. There is no such thing as a 'beginning' or 'peak' of evolution.

My friend, teleology exists due to an evolution. It may have only a relative and temporary representative value but to discard it as a complete nonsense is to discard portion of truth which means your discoveries and conclusions can never be complete.

 

[Lexicus]

Leap between monkeys and humans.

No such leap ever occurred.

Fine. Lets insert 'lower apes' and 'adapt' instead.

Replacing "catch up" with "adapt" would render your statement nonsensical.

My friend, teleology exists due to an evolution. It may have only a relative and temporary representative value but to discard it as a complete nonsense is to discard portion of truth which means your discoveries and conclusions can never be complete.

I discard it as complete nonsense because of the way you're using the concept. Teleology doesn't "exist" in any sense except as a mental construct.
Evolution is not governed by chance, it's governed by what helps organisms reproduce. That's it; that's the long and short of it. There are no 'higher laws' that make the emergence of something like humans inevitable; there is no long-term 'direction' of evolution; humans are not the 'peak' or 'end' of evolution.

 

[abradley]

Already happened. ID, 'theory of creation' or how any such nonsense may be called is not scientific and is not part of any prescribed curriculum. Those are indeed 'just theories'. Which puts them in a different category from scientific theories. In plain English: anything outside of evolution is not science.

(By the way, how you 'feel' about evolution is neither here nor there. Nor does how countless people 'feel' about the Bible relate to any scholarship on the Bible. It's the difference between opinion and fact. The reason there are so many 'opinions' to be found on the internet is just the result of too many people unwilling to be bothered to check facts before voicing their 'feelings'. You may feel the theory of gravity is somewhat flawed. That doesn't alter the fact that if you trip you fall - not upwards but down to the greater mass. You may feel that relativity can use some improvement. That doesn't alter the fact that E=mc².)

A simple way to explain evolution is by 2 examples. You eat cereals? The grains they come from can't be found in the wild. They were genetically modified by humans. That's humans making use of genetic mutation. Do you have a dog? 100,000 years ago there were no dogs. They were bred from (most likely) grey wolves. That means that all dogs, from chihuahuas to great Danes, ultimately descend from the grey wolf. Same thing as with your cereals.

And the same applies to humans as well. A couple of million years ago we weren't around. Now we are. That's evolution.

How I feel about evolution is 'here and there' to me.

This isn't a college where we're graded as passing or not, it's a forum for free expression of people's views ... at least that's what I thought it was. If you disagree with my view on evolution, then prove otherwise. Don't just shout 'You must believe.'

And IMO your dog proof is flawed, as you said wolves were breed to be dogs, what if there was nothing/nobody to breed them? What caused our ancestors to breed into humans? Was it natural or some outside force ... I don't know, but would we have dogs without humans?

So IMO the theory of evolution is still unproven, but it's the best theory so far, rather like Ptolemy's universe.

 

[Lexicus]

And IMO your dog proof is flawed, as you said wolves were breed to be dogs, what if there was nothing/nobody to breed them? What caused our ancestors to breed into humans? Was it natural or some outside force ... I don't know, but would we have dogs without humans?

Put simply, the 'outside force' is called natural selection and there is plenty of information available about it on the internet.

It's quite plain you know virtually nothing about evolution but you can rectify that easily in today's digital age.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Collies and German Shepherds are dogs that humans bred; African wild dogs are what you get without that interference.

 

[abradley]

Put simply, the 'outside force' is called natural selection and there is plenty of information available about it on the internet.

It's quite plain you know virtually nothing about evolution but you can rectify that easily in today's digital age.

Yes, I know about natural selection. Not an expert like some but have done some reading.

By the way, a nonsense question, why didn't Polynesians develop fins or gills, not even a tiny hint of them, it would have improved their life style, higher survival rates, ect.

But that would fall into Wallace's theory, not Darwin's.

Rather like the wolf to dog example.