 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 292 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614221 Today 3 Topics 127549 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nah i'm talking my own petty reasoning... sorry :( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think only a small percentage of the world's population has the native intelligence and educational framework necessary to understand the geological time scale and the evolution of species. And of that small percentage, most of them are too lazy or perverse to give it the fair shake it requires to fully grasp it. I just fucking give up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok.. here are more quotes... I can't rely on myself anymore... I just make mistakes all the time... "The utility of an 'adaption' is relative to the use sought to be made of it. A species without feather has no need of feathers. A feather which gradually evolves would be a positive disadventage over the "million of years" necesseary to perfect the feather. Furthermore, how did this process start? For an 'adaption' to be utile, it must be ready; while it is being prepared it is inutile. But if it is inutile, it is not Darwinian, for Darwinism says evolution is utilitarian." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
please, and now I am serious, I want you to make me believe the evolution. So please don't quit this discussion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think people could get it with a good multimedia introduction from a good instructor. most people could get it if it were illustrated to them. visual learning is very important. folks have to want to understand it though. i think it's ridiculous that key is disputing this without even trying to understand what he's disputing. willful ignorance, not lack of intelligence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
another quote: "Why is it that the 'lower' forms, those which are simpler (and less fit?) have not died out, have not yielded to the principle of Darwinian evolution? They remain in the same form they have had for vast expanses of the fossil record. Why do they not *evolve* into something *higher*?" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
key, we can't explain the whole thing. you can't go reading arguments against natural selection when you don't get natural selection. educate yourself in whatever way you can (uni if it's within your means) on the current reasoning for theory of evolution by natural selection. when you understand the argument for it, you can dispute it then if you need to. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
can't you comment some of the quotes? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well... in a way you are right... But please comment the quotes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i already commented on one, but i don't want to review this whole massive theory with somebody who doesn't understand the basic principles of natural selection. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry key. i'm off to homework, been here for at least an hour. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why not? I shouldn't need to know as much as you know about it. Just tell my why these quotes are "wrong". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this topic has given me nothing =( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I really wanted to understand why the evolution theory is praised... but I got nothing :´( well... maybe this isn't the right board, or the right time... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've read a lot about evolution. I recommend Richard Dawkins. His brain probably has the mass of three normal brains. I get scared that the book will start hovering and flipping around from the aura of telekinesis. I can't write anything he hasn't written a million times more lucidly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey! my friend! can you help me get the evolution? please comment some of the quotes I posted below =) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you started it alreadey having a very strong opinion. if i had told you there are actual proves of it you wouldn't believe me. you already know what you want to hear and that's why (partly) reading through this discussion was kinda unfullfilling. and as i already said its not a THEORY but a PRINCIPLE. It is not a STATEMENT but it is a possible logical form of statements. This means that it doesnt predict anything but gives a means of formulating a certain theory about a specific (evolutinary) aspect of nature. It's praised due to the fact that it can be really widely used, almost all features can be formulated with it, for example the extreme complexity of the human ear can't be understood in other terms. another reason why it is praised is that some religiously insired guys dismiss it due to their believes, and the enemy of the enemy is my friend, usually. The real mistake of religious critics is that they think there is a contradiction between science and religion. Ther is no, they play on entirly different levels |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
man, there were so many typos in there |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you started it alreadey having a very strong opinion. well not that strong. It was more of a strong feeling. My aim was to "get" the evolution (adapt to it ;) ), since all I hear about it is that people believe in it. if i had told you there are actual proves of it you wouldn't believe me. this stuff (above) is not happy to read. I am openminded (eventough it might not have shown here), and my aim is to understand that the evolution theory is more logical than what I believe in at present. example the extreme complexity of the human ear can't be understood in other terms. have you got a URL to a text about that? that would be interesting. I'm not going to complain, since you're actually posting on this topic, but when you say it can't be understood in other terms, that means you must have read ALL other terms. And I believe you have not, just like I haven't. another reason why it is praised is that some religiously insired guys dismiss it due to their believes is this a reason to praise it? The real mistake of religious critics is that they think there is a contradiction between science and religion. Ther is no, they play on entirly different levels. yeah. true. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think there is no denying that evolution is real. what i dont understand is why christians are always attacking it...i mean, why couldn't god have "created" using evolution. of course i speak of evolution only after the first life-form appeared. im certainly not religious but i dont understand this "big bang" either. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Would you mind commenting on (why) some of the quotes I posted below (are wrong)? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i have not read all other terms (i didnt say that) and i can't be bothered to look up for a proof on the net because it would just be something that someone else wrote on the net and that's not what i would rely on. I think you will have to go to a library for a serious answer, if you do honest research you will find what you are looking for. btw, i could add '..as far as i know' to every sentence, there might be another approach but i havent heard any. (i dont take spontaneous creation by good as a approach, its just shifting the problem to mr. god) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, noone actually does. some believe to, though ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It is instructive to try to read Dawkins from the point of view of a creationist or other hostile viewpoint. He doesn't come off very well. He's preaching to the choir. I have yet to read a book on evolution that would be a satisfying yet convincing read for the skeptical lay person. It's hard to convey how a few very simple principles can give rise to such complex consequences. (first person to mention chaos or fractals gets a boot in the nuttables) Key: sorry I lost my temper... but you really do have to know more about biology to debate this topic intelligently. Please have another look at the documents on the Talk Origins website. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hm... don't do that. don't involve mr god in this. Spontaneus creation, or mutation, is more of what I believe in right now. But it doesn't have to involve a god. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Would you mind commenting on (why) some of the quotes I posted below (are wrong)? 'twas not directed to me but well... no, because you are looking for scientific answers on a music mb. we can discuss things in a light way for fun, but i won't let you use quotes i can't crosscheck cause im sitting behind my pc. i did a little scientific work in physics and i know it is most important to keep a certain level of exactness otherwise it all goes down to flame wars about opinions. and this level is not gauranteed here. consult a library for answers i just realized i sounded kinda rude, that was not intended. i was actually surprised how civilized everyone still is |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I will not start this discussion here, I will just mention it... (since I prefer to discuss the theory itself). I'm not saying this is you, but many people I have met, who I've discussed the evolution with gets really mad at the end cause they can't make me believe it. The reason they get mad is because they believe it too strong. Their fate is as strong as if they'd believe in a religion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh and to give you a link to my work, check i'm kinda proud of the two papers; i'm r.schöfbeck |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
openminded people are civilized cause they want the truth, not to spread the truth as they know it at present. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
be sure not to look over the danger that the reason why they get mad is that you don't listen properly ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok.. thanks for the URL btw! =) well can't you just out of what you know of adaption/evolution falsify the quotes? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
evolution. terrible movie. harold ramis should be ashamed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's like explaining to someone that they have a skeleton, and they tell you, "no I don't". And you knock on their head with your fist and say, sure you do, that hard thing in there is your skull. And they say, "No it isn't." AAAAAARGH!!!!!!! It's like arguing with a 4 year old - a waste of everyone's time, except for the 4 year old, who is getting a huge kick out of being frustrating. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha.... yeah the ending was... wait... it didn't have an ending! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's not how it is... you haven't even mentioned the quotes. please atleast try. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I dont take spontaneous creation by good as a approach, its just shifting the problem to mr. god Does this mean that you're anti-god, and is that the only reason you do not believe in spontaneus creation (I think we're talking abou the same thing, eventough I haven't read about it termed as "sc")? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't think i have the knowledge to fight for darwinism properly. i simply know too little. if you know more please say it here. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why do you believe in Darwinism then? what is it that makes you believe in it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i was just saying that the arguments i heard coming from the religious side involving spontanous creation of the universe (or in seven days or something) are everything but scientific. just a different sheet |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and I don't care if you fight for Darwinism, fight for what you believe in, cause atleast that you must now. =) also. I don't like to see this as fighting, as I want to reach the truth, not spread it, like I earlier said. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh... I thought you meant like mutation. yeah I agree, it's not science. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
did i say i believe ?? and as i already said its not a THEORY but a PRINCIPLE. It is not a STATEMENT but it is a possible logical form of statements. This means that it doesnt predict anything but gives a means of formulating a certain theory about a specific (evolutinary) aspect of nature. It's praised due to the fact that it can be really widely used, almost all features can be formulated with it, for example the extreme complexity of the human ear can't be understood in other terms. please read what i write if you want to have my view on things |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok sorry... my bad english again =/ I read everything you post. Why do you think Darwinism is the most logical principle then? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
now that question just seems stupid... ignore it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but can you please, yourself, falsify thoose quotes? atleast try please. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what I mean by falsify = tell me that whoever said or wrote that is wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i can imagine your friends getting mad. if your interest is honest go to a library, this is the wrong place. i'm out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well ok... thanks for your time anyway! I really mean that. You've posting a lot in this thread! and I'll probably go the library some day soon... =) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Why is it that the 'lower' forms, those which are simpler (and less fit?) have not died out, have not yielded to the principle of Darwinian evolution? They remain in the same form they have had for vast expanses of the fossil record. Why do they not *evolve* into something *higher*?" you could be referring to single celled life that reproduces asexually. People were once asexual if you go back far enough in evolutionary time, just like all life was. The consequence of asexual reproduction is that each of the resulting daughter cells is almost exactly the same as the cell that produced them. Only rare mutations will potentially cause them to evolve, and only then if these mutations happen to result in increasing the fittness of the cells. Life has been a "j" curve, starting out simple for a long long time, then exponentially getting more complex until the graph goes straight up like it's about to when we invent artificial life. There's a lot that I do not know. Why havn't these asexual creatures gone extinct due to competition from the sexual ones? I don't know, interacting life forms is so complex. I guess they happen to be fit enough to still exist and continue to reproduce. I sound like an internet twat. Read the selfish gene instead of anything I write about this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thanks for posting again! Although you didn't give me any answer really, I like that you recommended a book(?) to me! =) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
