Forum menu
im loving it great science and dr alice roberts too and the genome lady is lovely too!
Recording this and looking forward to watching it. Suspect we are regressing though.
yep getting shorter and fatter in massachusetts!
To be honest I've thought for a long time that our own technological and scientific advances have actually been slowing down our physical evolution.
It appears we have actually started a regression.
It does bug me that evolution, although only a theory, is nearly always presented as a fact - D'oh!
There are gaping holes in the theory so big you could drive a bus through them!
It does bug me that evolution, although only a theory, is nearly always presented as a fact - D'oh!There are gaping holes in the theory so big you could drive a bus through them!
What are the gaping holes ?
tyger show me one of these holes
jesus that didnt take long this will run to six pages.
I liked the genome lady too - dodgy boots though.
For the hard of thinking/superstitious
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html
Anyone who denies that evolution does not exist is either a Creationist or doesn't understand evolution.
Evolution is a theory based upon chance, thought up by beings created by chance, in a universe that exists by chance.
Not saying it's incorrect, but it is just a theory based on our own limited human understanding of things.
This is also interesting:
[url= http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html ]Its all in here[/url]
[i]It does bug me that evolution, although only a theory..[/i]
It does strike me that invariably someone who uses the term 'only a theory' has nothing of note to say.
It's up there with "I'm not a racist, but" as an indicator of impeding drivel.
Evolution is a theory based upon chance, thought up by beings created by chance, in a universe that exists by chance.
It is so far removed from "chance" as anything can be.
Do you know what a "theory" is?
No offence but...
To say that evolution is a theory based on chance is to completely ignore the undeniable influence of natural selection.
It is so far removed from "chance" as anything can be.
Did life and/or the universe come into being due to chance or due to some other unknown influence?
Please explain.
Do you know what a "theory" is?
Yes, and I'm challenging that theory. what is your problem with that?
Apparently some bollocks called Biggiddy Bangeddy Bollocks.
Yes, and I'm challenging that theory.
I'm giddy with anticipation... off you go then.
Can we explain why the universe came into being? No. Can we observe that the flying squirrel developed it's "wings" in order to prevent it from having to leave the safety of the trees and run along the forest floor where all it's predators dwelled? Yes.
Of course, the initial mutation may have occured by chance, but the fact that those born with the mutation went on to be more successful than those without was not chance.
Life starting and life evolving are two different things.
So lets get back to the gaping holes and the challenging of the theory of evolution.
Can we explain why the universe came into being? No. Can we observe that the flying squirrel developed it's "wings" in order to prevent it from having to leave the safety of the trees and run along the forest floor where all it's predators dwelled? Yes.
Agreed. But that is my problem with people's over-excitement about evolution. It only explains what is going on in our small system.
However, it says nothing about the real question of life and WHY it exists in the way it does in the first place.
To suggest that we have solved the whole mystery of life by seeing how it has grown and changed into myriad forms over millions of years is incredibly arrogant and blinkered.
However, it says nothing about the real question of life and WHY it exists in the way it does in the first place.
Whats "why" got to do with anything?
To suggest that we have solved the whole mystery of life by seeing how it has grown and changed into myriad forms over millions of years is incredibly arrogant and blinkered.
Who is suggesting that?
Whats "why" got to do with anything?
That's a confusing question. I'm not sure I'm evolved enough to deal with it. 😕
I don't think anyone is trying suggest that evolution is the one theory to explain it all. However, it is a scientifically proven natural process, a bit like... say... photosynthesis, that helps shape us, and the world around us.
To suggest that we have solved the whole mystery of life by seeing how it has grown and changed into myriad forms over millions of years is incredibly arrogant and blinkered.
You mean other theories may exist? (I dont mean baseless hypothesis's)
Come on... out with it.
Whats "why" got to do with anything?
Ok, so can you tell me why life exists? What is the reason for it?
Simple questions.
which have nothing to do with evolution...
you may as well criticise the theory of plate tectonic because it [s]cannot[/s] does not explain the behaviour of twinned photons.
You talked about holes in the theory, without showing any.
Now you're asking us to answer "why?" Totally different.
Back under your bridge, please
PS - A theory is backed by observable evidence, and can be used to predict further observations.
That is to say, it's shown to be true without effective refutation.
Agreed. But that is my problem with people's over-excitement about evolution. It only explains what is going on in our small system.
It does not pretend to explain anything beyond this does it ?
However, it says nothing about the real question of life and WHY it exists in the way it does in the first place.
It makes sense that evolution evolved as life that could not change to adapt to its environment would die out, so it makes sense that evolution is selected for in the first place. So it makes sense that if we didn't have evolution life possible would not have lasted very long.
To suggest that we have solved the whole mystery of life by seeing how it has grown and changed into myriad forms over millions of years is incredibly arrogant and blinkered.
Again it does not claim to solve the complete mystery, it gives the mechanism but not the details of what selecting forces shaped life as we know it.
Do you think what you have said so far challenges the theory of evolution in any tangible way ? (trying to open debate not insult you by the way)
Ok, so can you tell me why life exists? What is the reason for it?
No I cant. My answer will be as irrelevant as yours.
not sure about evolution? - why do whales have leg bones?
You mean other theories may exist?
As I originally said, it may well be a correct theory. It sounds entirely plausible and is most likely given all the research and data.
That surely doesn't mean it should NEVER AGAIN be tested and questioned.
You seem intent on "exposing" me as a creationist. Sorry, can't oblige there.
It is the same narrow argument: either you believe in evolution or you're a creationist.
Far too simplistic.
[i]why do whales have leg bones? [/i]
No I cant. My answer will be as irrelevant as yours.
Doesn't mean we should stop asking the question, does it?
It's one of the most tested theories in science, its continually tested and to date has not been shown to be wrong.
FeeFoo - MemberDoesn't mean we should stop asking the question, does it?
no, but expecting the theory of evolution to provide an answer is misguided.
ohm's law doesn't have much to say on the buckling behaviour of slender columns.
Doesn't mean we should stop asking the question, does it?
No but its irrelevant in discussion about evolution though isn't it ?
As I originally said, it may well be a correct theory. It sounds entirely plausible and is most likely given all the research and data.
Generous of you. I thought at one point you were going to be doing some challenging, didnt quite materialise did it.
That surely doesn't mean it should NEVER AGAIN be tested and questioned.
I think you will find it is constantly "tested"
You seem intent on "exposing" me as a creationist. Sorry, can't oblige there.
Fair point.
It is the same narrow argument: either you believe in evolution or you're a creationist.
They do go hand in glove. Would you care to enlighten us as to how we got here (not the why!)
You seem intent on "exposing" me as a creationist. Sorry, can't oblige there.It is the same narrow argument: either you believe in evolution or you're a creationist.
Far too simplistic.
You seem intent on drawing boundaries: Many creationists also believe in evolution. The theory of evolution is not a theory of "coming into being": It is a theory of how species have adapted to their environment over the course of the time life has existed on earth.
Don't confuse existentialist thought with that of natural selection, as the two theories are on completely different levels.
It's a bit like someone arguing "how can there be a God when it is the sun that gives us life".
It's one of the most tested theories in science, its continually tested and to date has not been shown to be wrong.
Completely agree. It is, however, still a comparatively recent theory and so may indeed show itself to be incomplete in the future.
I love the whole notion of evolution and find it makes me marvel at life in its many forms.
But again, for me, it only answers a small part of the puzzle of life.
Completely agree. It is, however, still a comparatively recent theory and so may indeed show itself to be incomplete in the future.I love the whole notion of evolution and find it makes me marvel at life in its many forms.
But again, for me, it only answers a small part of the puzzle of life.
But you can offer nothing to challenge it then ?