Forum menu
Very interesting scu98rkr. I'd assumed it was because we were learning to be better people. However, I believe it was Dawkins that suggested society was actually a similar system to genetics and that it evolves just like our genome does, and influences us just as much (if not more).
Yes interesting but the problem with this line of thinking is it can become quite racist ie societies with a longer history of urbanisation less agressive + smaller w*llies societies with a shorter history of urbanisation more agressive + large w*llies
I'm not saying it's all rubbish (although it might be!) I'm just hacked off with it being portrayed all the time as fact - when it isn't!
Evolution is a fact, it's even been done under laboratory conditions using bacteria. Organisims change/adapt to suit their environment.
Evolution is also a theory, the theory being the best explanation of the facts that are observed. This explanation can and will change and alter so that it best fits the facts it seeks to explaing but that does not alter the first point that eveolution is also a fact.
A theory is not some idea that someone had.
evolution is a fact - we've got evidence.
lots.
and lots.
and lots.
of evidence.
and not a single scrap against it.
none.
if you can find some, you'll win a nobel prize for biology.
what on earth has dick size to do with urbanisation?
We have opposable thumbs
We need them to twiddle forks as without them we would never be able to eat spaghetti
Indisputable evidence that we were created by the Great Spaghetti Monster as perfect beings who will evolve no further.
Apart from me, because I don't particularly like spaghetti
evolution is a fact - we've got evidence.lots.
and lots.
and lots.
of evidence.
and not a single scrap against it.
I didn't think the existing evidence was conclusive, it justs suggests enough that the theory is worth pursuing.
Personally, I don't believe the universe and everything in it is just the result of a massive cosmic accident. If it was, then there's no purpose in our existence. Everything we are and do is pointless. And how depressing is that?.
I prefer to believe in intelligent design (for me, God) - everything was deliberately formed, exists for a reason, and we are all here for a purpose.
That's my belief anyway. Each to their own...
Speaking of Alice Roberts, it looks like she may be one of us ...
[img] 
[/img]
Believing in God is just a cop-out.
It's a way of saying that my tiny brain can't take uncertainty,
and it leads to the next question, Where did God come from, and why did he make the universe?
What's the point of adding this extra layer of unknowing?
Everything we are and do is pointless. And how depressing is that?.
Not at all. I find it enormously liberating.
Glass half full and all that 🙂
Oh and there wasn't much evidence for God last time I checked. But that's not the point of God of course. This debate isn't about God vs Science, it's about Creationism vs Science. There is no problem with God in Science really, since there's no way of telling if the universe 'just is' or was created by God.
Believing in God is just a cop-out.
It's a way of saying that my tiny brain can't take uncertainty,
Isn't Science (incl. evolution) striving to remove uncertainty from everything by attempting to understand it all?
Or perhaps mankind is so keen on trying to understand and explain everything for himself because the alternative is to acknowledge God exists?
Just a thought.
I didn't think the existing evidence was conclusive, it justs suggests enough that the theory is worth pursuing.
To my mind this displays the sort of confusion that hinders peoples understanding, i.e. the difference between a "fact" and a "theory". Many people assume when the term "theory" is used in science that it means the same as it does in everyday life, i.e. "an idea that someone has had" which is wrong. In this context the word theory means somthing along the line of "the best explanation of the facts that have at the moment". To use an analogy take gravity; fact or theory? Well it is demonstrably a fact because things always fall towards the earth when release so it is a fact. There however also the theory of gravity which is the explanation of how gravity works. This has been refined over and over again since the time of Newton (possibly before) and will likely go on being refined into the future but it does not alter the "fact" of gravity itself.
😯
(Edit, not aimed at the most recent poster btw)
[i]Personally, I don't believe the universe and everything in it is just the result of a massive cosmic accident. If it was, then there's no purpose in our existence. Everything we are and do is pointless. And how depressing is that?.[/i]
...and that's why religion was invented, and that's why it's such a powerful and persistent theme in human history. Religion is a social construct, made up by people to help answer the unanswerable. As we become more able to answer these kind of things, religion begins to be more and more exposed. Add in the obligatory holy books and unshakeable foundations which limit the way each new scientific discovery or explanation can be explained away and it all looks to be less imposing as each year passes.
But people who choose to believe seem to be able to ignore these contradictions somehow. Intelligent design is not even a theory; it's an attempt to fit evolution (the fact) into a religious framework and it's patently not very good at doing so.
Or perhaps mankind is so keen on trying to understand and explain everything for himself because the alternative is to acknowledge God exists?
Er, no?
Wanting to understand things is the human condition. God is one possible answer, deemed by some to be not a good enough answer.
it's an attempt to fit evolution (the fact) into a religious framework
Not quite, it's an attempt to fit the fact of the existence of life and its diversity into a religious framework.
there wasn't much evidence for God last time I checked. But that's not the point of God of course. This debate isn't about God vs Science, it's about Creationism vs Science. There is no problem with God in Science really, since there's no way of telling if the universe 'just is' or was created by God.
Very well put molgrips.
Although you have to factor in God if you're talking about Creationism...
Perhaps although Intellgient Design is used as the opposing idea - doesn't actually specify God, just someone or thing intelligent. Aliens perhaps 🙂
EDIT: Is God an alien? Discuss.
shmuk - MemberI didn't think the existing evidence was conclusive, it justs suggests enough that the theory is worth pursuing.
it's very conclusive.
you may prefer to believe in intelligent design, but that's not because the theory of evolution isn't good enough to convince, it's because you don't like it.
the universe doesn't care whether you like it or not.
sorry.
I guess the question would be 'What would conclusive evidence look like?'. If the answer is 'There will never be any' then that shows a closed mind that isn't open to new ideas. If there is an answer to the question then perhaps someone may have already found it and can provide it.
humans have 46 chromosomes.
chimps have 48 chromosomes.
our 2nd chromosome looks exactly how you would expect if 2 chromosomes became fused. we have even seen the join:
[img] 
[/img]
it seems our common ancestor had 48 chromosomes, after the speciation, humans and chimps continued to evolve, down our separate 'branches'.
the necked regions at the end of the 2 chimp chromosomes are telomeres, our 2nd chromosome has the 'remains' of a telomere still in it.
lovely, lovely, science!
Trouble with intelligent design is it falls foul of recursion. If we decide that something complex must be designed then it must have been designed by something more complex. So thus this complex thing must have been designed by something even more complex, rinse and repeat until you realise its not a reasonable explanation of how things ended up the way they are in the world.
you may prefer to believe in intelligent design, but that's not because the theory of evolution isn't good enough to convince, it's because you don't like it.
No, it's because the theory of evolution isn't good enough to convince me.
I'm more convinced by 'intelligent design' because stuff in the Universe and on Earth and what-not all seems to fit too well together to be the result of a fluke/accident.
Are we still evolving?
[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/met-parachute-honest-opinion-please ]Not all of us[/url]
shmuk - Memberthe theory of evolution isn't good enough to convince me.
I'm more convinced by 'intelligent design' because stuff in the Universe and on Earth and what-not [b]all seems to fit too well together[/b] to be the result of a fluke/accident.
whales have leg bones - why?
why do you keep using words like fluke and accident?
and you talk about 'stuff in the universe' - evolution has nothing to say about the formation of the universe.
No, it's because the theory of evolution isn't good enough to convince me.
What bits of evolution do you find unconvincing ?
I'm more convinced by 'intelligent design' because stuff in the Universe and on Earth and what-not all seems to fit too well together to be the result of a fluke/accident
Can you explain this in an evidence based scientific way ?
I'm more convinced by 'intelligent design' because stuff in the Universe and on Earth and what-not all seems to fit too well together to be the result of a fluke/accident
What else would you expect as the net result of millions of years of evolution whereby organisms [b][i]adapt and change to suit their environment[/i][/b]?
this is what I don't get about 'evolution' - just because two things look similar then the conclusion is they must be directly related?
I thought the human chromosone was also 98% identical to a cauliflower or something. Unless that's one of them there urban myths.
There are parts of the human chromosone that are found in all sorts of other species - this doesn't mean they're linked, it just means certain elements relate to specific characteristics (?)
Maybe.
you are right, correlation does not [s]imply[/s] mean* causation.
it does however, raise it's eyebrows enthusiastically, and whisper [i]'look over here'[/i]
cauliflower, humans, 98%? no. but it's not far off.
which means that humans and cauliflowers have a common ancestor.
(*edited in response to the clever chap below)
correlation does not imply causation
yes it does.
It doesn't [i]mean[/i] causation.
yes, you are right of course!
Trouble with intelligent design is it falls foul of recursion. If we decide that something complex must be designed then it must have been designed by something more complex. So thus this complex thing must have been designed by something even more complex, rinse and repeat until you realise its not a reasonable explanation of how things ended up the way they are in the world.
"You cant kid me young man. Its Turtles all the way down!"
What bits of evolution do you find unconvincing ?
All of it. Variation within a species, fine. Change into another species? Nothing that's been presented as 100% absolute & unchallengeable.
Can you explain this in an evidence based scientific way ?
No. Scientists do a pretty good job of that. I'm just your average idiot 🙂 ... I'm just unconvinced that a series of accidents could result in what we observe around us.
[img] 
[/img]
I'm just unconvinced that a series of accidents could result in what we observe around us.
Evolution is not a series of accidents.
Not so intelligent design:
The human appendix
Hind leg bones in whales
The laryngeal nerve in giraffes
Nipples on men
Are these just cock-ups or deliberately daft? Either way, sack the design team.
All of it. Variation within a species, fine. Change into another species? Nothing that's been presented as 100% absolute & unchallengeable.
Have you been paying attention to any of this? There are several intelligent comments above about what a theory is, how science works etc.
Are you aware that over 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct? was this all just practice?
I think us on the pro evolution/Natural selection side are still waiting for one scrap of evidence that the theory is even slightly shaky let alone has holes in it big enough to drive a bus through.
Its one of the most incredible bits of science ever. Remember Darwin never new about DNA when he wrote the The Origin of Species. Would be amazing to show him the results of the human genome project and show him the mechanism his theory depends on. Say look old chap you were right 🙂
shmuk - Memberthis is what I don't get about 'evolution' - just because two things look similar then the conclusion is they must be directly related?
now you're thinking skeptically - good.
we can look at the fused chromosomes above, and we look at the shared mutations, and we look at the mutations unique to each species.
the rate of mutations is known, and can be used as a sort of clock, using this clock we can date the fusion event.
we have 2 clocks; humans and chimps - they both agree with each other.
and we can look at and date the fossil record - which agrees with the chromosome mutation clocks.
so now we have 3 chains of evidence that all support each other - there are many, many, more.
we're yet to find one that doesn't fit.
if you can, you will win a nobel prize.
Alice knocked the spots off the genome woman.
Have you been paying attention to any of this?
Not entirely, I'm at work.
There are several intelligent comments above about what a theory is, how science works etc
Which is another reason why I don't give the theory of evolution much credit. It's just explanation of how something might work. Which means it isn't necessarily correct.
I also like the idea that the whole massive evolution movement is actually completely wrong and we've spent all this time barking up the wrong tree.
Mankind doesn't like the idea of intelligent design because he can't then stride around saying "see that, I used my enormous brain to understand that; gaze upon me, aren't I magnificent and clever and all that"
hmm not sure about that, what was her name ? The genome woman that is. Just out of interest of course, might read a bit of her research
you will win a nobel prize
Another one. Great. I'll need a bigger cabinet.
My cleaner's going to love me - more junk to polish.
(Is the nobel prize even a trophy thing? ... probably not. cancel the order for the cabinet)
No. Scientists do a pretty good job of that. I'm just your average idiot ... I'm just unconvinced that a series of accidents could result in what we observe around us.
So basically choosing a hunch vs experimental observation based science. As long we know where your coming from thats fine 🙂
Would I be correct in thinking that the main reason you dismiss evolution is it does not fit well with a doctrine you believe in rather than you have analysed the facts and decided they don't make sense.
Read "The Blind Watchmaker" and see if it answers some of your questions. I know Dawkins can be a bit annoying but he does set out a very persuasive case for evolution.
Give yourself a chance to look for the truth 🙂
Change into another species? Nothing that's been presented as 100% absolute & unchallengeable
You don't just have dogs giving birth to seals, you know.
It all happens very very slowly and incrementally. Some species are very close, some not. Some of the close ones can interbreed. There are lots of species so similar that taxonomists can't decide if they are different or not.
Have you actually looked to see if there are species that've evolved into slightly different species based on their environment, say? Cos that's exactly what Darwin did.
Have you read his book btw?
Give yourself a chance to look for the truth
I have found it.
But, as someone pointed out earlier, this thread is about evolution vs ?, not God/faith/religion/