Religion

GR781 wrote:
bleh, just because bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics, does not mean evolution is fact. It is evidence, but not proof. Get that straight. The existance of evolution is not fact. its a theory, and theres a lot of evidence to support that theory, but there is NOT proof.

What will prove the theory, if not evidence? Is any theory actually proven beyond any possible doubt? Perhaps not. Evolution just tends to be the one that gets the brunt of the attacks, because it clashes with certain ideals still held by extreme religous groups.
There is not, and probably never will be, proof beyond a shadow of a doubt in everyone's minds that Evolution is FACT. But there is already overwhelming evidence which is ongoing, and has come an incredibly long way since Darwin.

[ Edited by Raindog on 2005/1/17 20:24 ]

Redking wrote:
Excuse me, can someoen just confirm with me that the pentadactyl limb theory exists?

Yeah, it exists, Rory. Centres around different theories about how the bat's wings evolved. Don't know much else about it though; I consult an encyclopoedia later.

No need to Joel!

Im going to fetch my higher Biology notes!

To the Schoolbag *theme music*

Evolution is probably the best bet of how living things have come about.
It makes sense and theres lots of evidnce to support it you can even see it happeing in some cases.

Pentadactyl Limb: "Any limb with five digits such as a human hand or foot which are found in many amphibia, mammals, birds and reptiles, which can allow us to deduce that all species in these categories derived from one common ancestor."

So there you go. There's a load of stuff about the Bat's wing, too; apparantly there's a big argument over how it evolved.

Encyclopoedia 1, Rory's Schoolbag 0

[ Edited by Raindog on 2005/1/17 20:51 ]

Beam, thanks - and to be straight with you I may be more acceptant of evolution over religion, but I can still entertain the fact that a higher deity/being was responsible for our existence. Was it luck or was it made - that is very open to be proven, and I could honestly accept proof of either to be true.

But one thing is for sure GR781, we did evolve - this is without doubt fact, how it happened is the question!

bleh, just because bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics, does not mean evolution is fact. It is evidence, but not proof. Get that straight. The existance of evolution is not fact. its a theory, and theres a lot of evidence to support that theory, but there is NOT proof.

I find it honestly very amusing how you have sidetracked the major points I raised about evolution, and the simple facts there-in, of the evolution of key species on this planet - bears, lions, apes and 1000's of other species who are all genetically in the same 'family' but have EVOLVED differently due to external factors (mainly climate, geography).

Sorry GR but evolution in it's core IS fact.

I am not an evolutionarist that believes in the theory of us being monkeys, but I do know for a genetic fact that we are in the same species.

Evolution is a scientific fact, proven by the best means available to any scientific or religious professor on this planet. It's just the truth, not a theory.

My relgion is Nintendo. Im serious

Or the panda bear having different teeth than carnivorous bears (like the black bear). They are all bears but different species have evolved differently due to the different external factors.

if we take it that all matter was once in this very compact theory, and then exploded out, comme the big bang, and we take it that all particles were then headed out at certain trajectory, this means they were always going to follow whatever trajectory they were set on, and always going to react with x particle and y particle, and thus that everything that happens is preordained because theres no way we can avoid it. Hence while we believe we have choice we dont, its just particles reacting in our brains compelling us to do certain things.

I always thought this. In theroy someone could predict EXACTALLY what would happen in the future based on what had gone before- as everything we do is based on experience (and instinct, which is expereince that the specsis has or summit). Of course, it would never be possible to accurately predict the future- it just wouldn't.

As for evolution, I'm a bit confused. If it really exists then wouldn't there be thousands of different types of humans (now I know everyone is different n all, but I'm thinking more extreme). Eg, rarther then jut one 'missing link', there would be thousands- millions. Therefore there would be no way of telling weather someone was human or monkey (or whatever) as the lines between them would be so blured. Differrent things from different environments react in different ways but it's not like monkey=jungle man=farming land (or whatever)- surely they wouldn't just split into 2 like that (or 10 or however many) they'd be millions- and almost no way of telling if one in perticular could breed with another. (phew, think i repeated myself a lot there!)

I think religion is just a way to get people to do what others (with authority) want (god spelt similar to good, devil is just evil with a 'd' on the front), but as for how life was first formed- i haven't a clue!

[ Edited by fenno2001 on 2005/1/17 23:05 ]

I thought Pandas were of the same "family" as racoons. Or did I just dream that.

fenno, your post made my head hurt. There was no '2-Way Split', and it's not the case that any creature/ape/primate existing today is the sudden offshoot of a single chain e.g. gorillas, chimps and humans atc. didn't sprout simultaneously from a single source, but rather each had its own evolutionary chain. Your scenario also doesn't seem to take intellectual development into account...although it did remind me a lot of Planet of the Apes. Apologies if I've missed the point of your scenario entirely.

It's a little ironic how a discussion on religion morphs (or should that be 'evolves') into a discussion on science. I think perhaps we've veered this argument so far off the beaten track I can't see any signposts!

Maybe best to get back to the original topic and leave the monkeys and the pentadactyl limbs behind.

I gotta say that to my understanding atheists don't beleive in pain. I just question everything, pain is far to real for me to say that I don't beleive it

nin10do wrote:
I find it honestly very amusing how you have sidetracked the major points I raised about evolution, and the simple facts there-in, of the evolution of key species on this planet - bears, lions, apes and 1000's of other species who are all genetically in the same 'family' but have EVOLVED differently due to external factors (mainly climate, geography).

Sorry GR but evolution in it's core IS fact.

I am not an evolutionarist that believes in the theory of us being monkeys, but I do know for a genetic fact that we are in the same species.

Evolution is a scientific fact, proven by the best means available to any scientific or religious professor on this planet. It's just the truth, not a theory.

just because it is plausible, and the most likely solution, does NOT make it fact. You dont know that its fact, because there isnt definitive proof. So it is NOT fact. Theres no way you can argue your way around that. It just isnt. I would hedge my money on evolution, if someone asked me what my theory is, I'd go with evolution, I'm just saying theres a reaosn its called the 'theory' of evolution, and thats because its a theory, and not proven. If you can please link me to definitve proof that evolution is fact, and not just a theory, go ahead. But I know you cant, because definitive proof doesnt exist. Evidence exists. Thats not proof.

Now if you want to say that you 100% believe that evolution is the case, and that there is a great likelihood that it is true, id go for that. But say what you mean; because if you are saying there there is proof that 100% guarantees that evolution is how we got here, then you, are wrong.

One alternative, which a creationist could raise: God created everything as it is right now, 500 years ago, and left the evidence to make us believe something different. And theres no way you can definitively say that didnt happen. As long as the probability of that being the truth is greater than 0, that means that the alternative, evolution, does not have a probably of being the truth of 100%. So its just not. Sorry.

Apologies if I've missed the point of your scenario entirely.

didn't sprout simultaneously from a single source

I gotta say that to my understanding atheists don't beleive in pain.

Oh, and one more thing, I was thinking today, couldn't God just be another name for the big bang?

Pentadactyl Limb: "Any limb with five digits such as a human hand or foot which are found in many amphibia, mammals, birds and reptiles, which can allow us to deduce that all species in these categories derived from one common ancestor."

Yeah I found it in amongst my notes, just about the same, the common ancestor thing was the exact same.

So chock one up for evolution!

Take that God!!

just because it is plausible, and the most likely solution, does NOT make it fact. You dont know that its fact, because there isnt definitive proof. So it is NOT fact. Theres no way you can argue your way around that. It just isnt. I would hedge my money on evolution, if someone asked me what my theory is, I'd go with evolution, I'm just saying theres a reaosn its called the 'theory' of evolution, and thats because its a theory, and not proven. If you can please link me to definitve proof that evolution is fact, and not just a theory, go ahead. But I know you cant, because definitive proof doesnt exist. Evidence exists. Thats not proof.

Now if you want to say that you 100% believe that evolution is the case, and that there is a great likelihood that it is true, id go for that. But say what you mean; because if you are saying there there is proof that 100% guarantees that evolution is how we got here, then you, are wrong.

One alternative, which a creationist could raise: God created everything as it is right now, 500 years ago, and left the evidence to make us believe something different. And theres no way you can definitively say that didnt happen. As long as the probability of that being the truth is greater than 0, that means that the alternative, evolution, does not have a probably of being the truth of 100%. So its just not. Sorry.

But it is a fact GR, it has been scientifically proven that key species have variants/relatives that have evolved differently due to external influences (climate, geography etc).

Have you heard of DNA - Evolution of species as I have noted is fact, without doubt, genetics are not theory's, there are proven. I do not need to link you to any genetic/DNA proof of this as you cannot argue against this simple fact and I can't feel bothered wasting my time to do so!

Now I'll admit that there are multiple theories in evolution in a broader sense, some of which I do 'believe' and some of which I do not - but as I said evolution in the terms I have listed IS fact.

We'll avoid the greater debate of whether evolution is why we are here, all I'll suggest is if evolution can make the Mountain Lion and the African Lion so fundamentally different yet so similar then there is a very good 'chance' that we have evolved to what we are from the monkey (or whatever) family.

After all DNA proves that we are 97% genetically identical to monkeys (crap I'm going down the monkey route again :p).

nintendonic36 wrote:
My relgion is Nintendo. Im serious

I'm sure you are.

nin10do wrote: After all DNA proves that we are 97% genetically identical to monkeys (crap I'm going down the monkey route again...)

True. And 98% identical to chimpanzees, although that's a slightly contentious point for some, as any DNA-based organism apparantly shares at least 25% of its genetic material with any other. I'm not arguing against Evolution, as I agree with most of your points, but the DNA argument is not necessarily definitive.
On the other hand, adding physiology, psychology and behavioural patterns etc etc etc into the mix paints a much clearer picture when combined with genetic evidence. That particular link will never be beyond refute (just as no theory can ever be completely beyond refute), but the evidence is overwhelming, and through the study of this link, mankind has learned a lot about itself.

But I suggest again, let's leave the monkeys behind us now and move back closer to the original topic.

Good points, and yes let's get back to what this thread should be about, Religion

And a good place to start is the mosks/churches etc that were left undamaged in the tsunami - yes science/structural engineers can explain how the water can pass through the arches, but it's still pretty strange seeing the various religous buildings standing in amongst such total devistation!

Thank the Romans for stealing the arch of the Greeks I think for that one. Though I am a little against the Catholic scheme of thinking, I've seen a large amount of Catholic churches in Italy and while they look nothing short of amazing, I tend to feel, if there is a God, I'm sure that God wouldn't want us to get caught in all that gold and glorification. (Is that actually a word?)

No offense to any Catholics, being a simple Protestant I rely on the fact Christ died on the cross and it means I'm going to heaven. Ah the simple life with no obligation except not to go around pissing God off.

Nin10do, Sharpshot. Bacteria don't evolve to become resistant to antibiotics, they already are resistant to that antibody. When using antibodies it never kills 100% of the bacteria, there are some which are resistant to that bacteria and survive. Due to the reproduction process of the bacteria they quickly repopulate but from the strain that didn't die. This new generation of bacteria, while now resistant to the antibodies is still the same bacteria that were killed by the antibodies.

Raindog, a transitional species is a species which clearly shows the organs, body parts and genetic makeup from two different species. For example, there is no species of fish which can survive on land and water. Also with regards to the 5 fingered evidence, the DNA and genetic required to create those five fingers in each species is different, if they were to show signs of evolution then they would need to be consistency between the DNA structures for them but in each species it is a different part of the DNA structure which creates those five digits.

Currently all the evidence pointing towards evolution is circumstancial. Enough to base a well thought out theory on, but not enough to actually prove it.

Hm, it seems the definition/identity of and importance placed in the idea of the 'transitional animal' is one that has been raging between Creationists and Evolutionary Biologists etc. for a long, long time, and one that won't be resolved here, as neither side is ever going to agree. As far as the Pentadactyl Limb goes...well, I don't know a great deal about that; my last definition was straight from a Biology Encyclopoedia (and Redking's biology homework). Putting forward the DNA argument against it seems strange though, as uncanny genetic comparisons and consistencies tend to be dismissed by Creationists/anti-evolutionists when they provide evidence for evolution...

This aside, I've already said all on the subject I intend to say here and now. I never thought I'd be arguing on the side of science; I have an A Level in Biology, but that's as far as my qualifications in the field go, and that was a long time ago...

The one point that everyone seems to agree on is that Evolution is not 100% proven without any shadow of doubt. So let's take from that what we will, and move on to matters more spiritual...

[ Edited by Raindog on 2005/1/20 11:14 ]

Did you know the evolution theory never actually suggested we evolved from monkeys you dumbies? That was a common misunderstanding that the people who campaigned against Darwin.

So for all those people who say, "it's so stupid, we were never monkeys!" You right coz Darwin said that we humans and monkeys come from a common ancestor. It was actually a shrew like creature. Take my word for it!

Also, have any of you guys heard of DNA hybirdization? By mixing two DNA strands that belong to two different species, you can see how closely the two species are related. I think people woh dismiss evolution probably did not understand it or did not get a good teacher to explain it to you.

Gastrian wrote:
Nin10do, Sharpshot. Bacteria don't evolve to become resistant to antibiotics, they already are resistant to that antibody. When using antibodies it never kills 100% of the bacteria, there are some which are resistant to that bacteria and survive. Due to the reproduction process of the bacteria they quickly repopulate but from the strain that didn't die. This new generation of bacteria, while now resistant to the antibodies is still the same bacteria that were killed by the antibodies.

Are you sure about that? Just what I've been taught, and what I get out of my text books (I know they simplify it for students so that could be a reason) but it does they bacteria evolve and a new strain of bacterium becomes resistant to antiobiotics and thrive due to natural selection. Which is basically what you said, but there are other situations where it happens, for instance where the wrong antibiotic is used or when it is not needed. So it doesn't kill any bacteria at all, and they begin to evolve. Or something like that, not only is my teacher shit, but my facts seem a little wrong, so could easily be wrong.

Just a productive question Z, if Darwin's theory isn't that we evolved from monkeys, why is it whenever I see his theory their is that timeline of monkey into man? I mean have we all got it wrong, or is it just I've got shit sources?

The first primate was a shrew like creature, but it lived at the same time as the dinosaurs! OF course we didn't evolve from modern day monkeys, we did evolve from monkey like creatures.

Also, is evolution nature adapting to its surroundings? It's just that the more I think about it, the more it seems logical that creatures mutate and then adapt their surroundings due to the mutation, rarther then the other way around...

Also, is evolution nature adapting to its surroundings? It's just that the more I think about it, the more it seems logical that creatures mutate and then adapt their surroundings due to the mutation, rarther then the other way around...

I think generally it is a benefitial mutation, thus creating a higher success at hunting (as an example) and the mutation is passed as a dominant gene etc - the creature that is better at hunting will be more likely to reproduce etc.

And sharpshot that's pretty much what I remember from higher biology also - but that was 6/7 years ago now.