]Equinox just means that ANYTHING could have create us however it saw fit, without using evolution. That does not in any way have anything to do with the Bible or any other religion.
Intelligent Design technically is an "intelligent being" not referencing the biblical deity.
Equinox means that, if you asked Thrall "when was the world created", he'd say some 60,000 years ago when the titans came to Azeroth. If you tell him that it was in fact created some 20 years ago by a dude in California, that wouldn't make any sense to him, but it'd still be true.
Athletes are also ruined when they take steroids. And yet still some do it.
Scientists likewise are only human.
Indeed, and they have every right to believe in whatever they want. But the scientific community rarely, if ever, puts up with people who attempt to hinder scientific progress.
She is also not claiming that any of this has anything to do with religion. For all we know, aliens could be watching us and creating new species.
If that is true, then that begs the question of where did the aliens come from, did other aliens create them, and did other aliens create those aliens, etc. It's simply illogical. Yes, there is a slim chance that we were created, but that is very unlikely.
Ah I thought that she was arguing for creationism, but I misread. Whatever. Well this discussion wasn't supposed to include me, so I'm just going to watch from now on
i think we've all given a lot of evidence for macroevolution, and evolution by large. everything else seems to be not knowing what exactly evolution explains and doesnt explain.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
everything else seems to be not knowing what exactly evolution explains and doesnt explain.
Why I oppose most who try to make me believe in it. (the rest of this post is not directed at you since you're a biologist from what I understand).
If you're not an evolutionist, biologist, or something of that sort, you should not try to prove to me that your position is the right one, because evolution is a VERY complex topic, which is why there are so many misconceptions, misunderstandings, and so on, that I have little reason to believe you actually know what you're talking about any more than I do.
And yet every atheist and their mother believes in it just because it's the common scientific ground. And they keep trying to pretend it's simple, and just because they can read some article or some book on it they understand it. I read those articles. They are complex. They require shit ton of knowledge I do not have, people on this forum do not have. Biology, genetics, physics. Like that "luminescence" thing you brought up, do you actually understand what that is, and what it does? I seriously doubt it. I know enough in my field to know I can tell people rubbish and they won't know the difference. I know enough in my field to know the internet is RIDDLED with such rubbish, in fact. Classes in colleges can teach such rubbish. And my field, compared to evolution, is a joke. In complex topics, a lot of stuff can make sense without being true, I don't see how evolution is exempt from that.
And I'm not willing to waste 5 or more years of my life on studying a topic that has no use to me just to argue it. And until I study it for 5 or more years, I have no business believing into something I do not understand, do I? Not believing is the basic, starter, scientific, skeptic position. I met people who studied evolution for 20 years, and yet many still believe in creation, many still believe in evolution, and some don't know what to believe. There's no consensus on the topic, really. That's why I do not believe in it.
YOUR position on creation is "it's totally wrong and makes no sense and I won't even think about it"
MY position on evolution is "It doesn't make sense to me as of right now, even after thinking about it" Please note I used to believe in evolution and I recall what my reasoning was. It was silly.
My position is "I don't know, I'm leaning to the other one, or they both may be true"
Your position is "I KNOW, the other one MUST BE WRONG, you just DONT UNDEERSTAND"
Who's the real scientific one here? Seems like science lately has lost it's ability to admit it doesn't know the answer.
So please keep your faith to yourself and let people believe what they want to believe, because you are not any more correct than they are simply due to your lack of awareness in the topic.
On the other hand, Irrational still seems to think I'm a Christian or something.
Before you try to reply to ANY of my posts, please learn the difference between organized religion and religion. Until then, stop pretending I'm talking about something I am not and realize how unscientific your position actually is...
If that is true, then that begs the question of where did the aliens come from, did other aliens create them, and did other aliens create those aliens, etc. It's simply illogical. Yes, there is a slim chance that we were created, but that is very unlikely.
I'm sorry but I have to say that's extremely simplistic thinking.
If evolution is true, than that begs the question of where did the matter came from, and did other matter 'evolve'/transform into this matter, etc. It works exactly the same way and comes to the question of "did matter or mind come first", which can be completely irrelevant since matter could have created mind and mind in turn created us, that's why I say evolution and creation are not completely incompatible lol.
We're talking OUR creation here. Not the creation of Earth, or the creation of the universe. It doesn't matter where the aliens came from. We could have been created by humans who have evolved, like in 13th Floor. We could have been created by matter which evolved that was created by aliens.
And why are you saying it's a slim chance? I'm sorry, you don't know SHIT about the universe or how things happen in it so for you to make statements of such certainly is just plain arrogant and highly assumptive, even if relying on our current science. Aliens could have evolved. If you say humans could have evolved, why couldn't have aliens? If that's slim...
Evolution is very unlikely, too, if you ask me. That's an irrelevant question. The first question is, is it possible? If so, the second question is, did it happen? Those are the only two questions that matter. Everything else is not important. Probability comes to time. Time is not important, only life is important.
Einstein was a pantheist; so he used the word 'God' in a pantheistic sense to describe the workings of the universe.
Which is pretty close to what deists believe in, actually, just less specific.
Pantheism is a religion, whether you like it or not, and Einstein was religious. If you refer to the working of the universe in such a way, you believe in something, even if you cannot give it a clear definition.
You should stop pretending religion is some clear cut concept or something that specifically involves 1 God that people worship who has created everything.
you shouldnt take my word, or anyones elses word for a fact. im not an evolutionary biologist, all i know is that from my molecular studies is that it exists because i have manipulated genes much the same way earthly conditions do, albeit on a much shorter time scale and much smaller sample.
interesting fact, about 10% of the modern human genome is comprised of viral DNA. these genes have functions.
i disagree that you can just wikipedia evolution, because that only explains the basic idea. to really understand it youd need to wikipedia genetics, molecular biology, biochem, cell biology and so on, and probably read til next month.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
One can't trust a book to tell the truth. But a number of books is prone to reach a good consensus on what the people who have a degree in the field think. So reading a half-dozen books will get one the sufficient level of knowledge of evolution one needs if they don't want to pursue a career in the field. Add a couple books arguing against evolution and one can make a reasonable decision.
That implies that there's a definite answer to everything, though.
The evo field is not very clear-cut. Sure, you can read a few books. They may come to a consensus. The way they do, though, may not be incorrect, and to know if it's correct or not, you need that background...
i disagree that you can just wikipedia evolution, because that only explains the basic idea. to really understand it youd need to wikipedia genetics, molecular biology, biochem, cell biology and so on, and probably read til next month.
interesting fact, about 10% of the modern human genome is comprised of viral DNA. these genes have functions.
Don't bore her with facts, she'll just get pissy.
that wasnt directed at anyone actually, just an interesting observation that supports evolution. in fact, we find that knockout samples have higher percentages of miscarries. its because these viral genes allow for cells to aggregate and become a sticky 'glue' to attach the placenta to the uterine wall. haha ^^
i like this example because it shows how modern humans are different than humans that were around just a couple hundred or thousand years ago; evidence that we havent stopped evolving.
and id like to point out that this is exclusively genetic. not based on phenotype, like when we like to point out how much taller we are and how our brains are slightly larger than our forefathers, which can be attributed to other factors. this however, is genetic proof that our genome has undergone a change - a hallmark of evolution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Witch was first - the egg or the chicken?, lol. kekeke
Is this for or against evolution?
Dunno i think i trolled there, sorry fo that ; )What i know bout evolution is not much, tho. It's all bout dinosaurs at the beginning that got mass extinct, or so the scientists say. And after that, man comes down from the trees, starts to walk on two legs, discovers fire, vagina and so we are here : ). Thats one of the story, other is the bible - the adam and eve thing. Its really hard to know for sure. If you know some other evolution theories please enlighten me on the subject so we can do some analysis ; )Imagine tho, if dinosaurs still lived today. Well from what i heard crocodiles and some lizards like comodo varans are from dinosaurs nature, but imagine some of the really big ones, hehe.
Um... Well... I guess you can say it happened like that, but it's not.
One hypothesis of the evolution of man is the ability to stand, walk, and balance on two legs. This enabled the ability for free hands, which helped man compete with other apes. For example, you can use tools to start killing animals, which is better than the primates that you have to compete for food. This also allowed for the development of the brain, which got bigger as time went on.
However, there were a couple problems with bigger brains, with the main one being birth. Babies would not be able to fit through the birth canal. So what did evolution do? Well, babies had to be born prematurely. Now this had a couple consequences, some being good and bad. One bad consequence is that human babies are one of the weakest babies in the animal kingdom. A good thing, however, is the removal of almost all instinctual behaviors. Instincts are developed late pregnancy, and the premature birth killed most of that.
So what does this mean? Well, this meant that humans had to learn almost all their behaviors from their parents, which still stands today. They learned how to act, how to hunt, how to eat, etc. This allowed for further intelligence which was leading to the absolute dominance of homo sapiens. How? Well, armed with this new intelligence, mankind was able to migrate almost anywhere in the world since they became knowledgeable of their surroundings and were able to adapt to it without evolution.
And that's really why mankind is so dominant today. They are able to survive almost anywhere without the need to evolve to adapt to that current area, allowing global, maybe even interstellar, migration.
Well i read quite a few of the early posts and i can conclude that sperm and vagina are the main components of evolution. With no reproduce, theres no one to continue the life cycle. Every other element you could think of is like a hammer and anvil. [climate, food, everything]. It "shapes" the species - evolves them. And those "shapes" are inherited from generation to generation.For example - why asian ppl have slanted eyes? From what i know, this happened couse of the strong wings that blow in the Asia region and the sun [land of he rising sun, remember?]. Ppl tend to keep their eyes half-closed, half-opened and if you do that for over milions of years you get slanted eyes... this also applies to the cheekbones - try closing your eyes almost fully as if you are struggling to read something, or as if the sun is shining in your face and you will feel slight pressure on your cheekbones. Also food maybe a factor too - chewing on your wisdom teeth applies some pressure to the cheekbones, too. [Tho im not that informed on the subject on what they ate ; )] That could explain the high raised cheekbones. This is if you talk about big scale. On small scale are those bacteria shizlle's that mate differently and don't need to be of the same gender to reproduce - and i dunno if humans became out of these... tho i heard that the womens clittoris was a ultra small, unevolved version of the mans penis...
Um... No... Evolution does not work that you keep going underwater, and hope that you eventually grow gills. It works with mutation and natural selection. What you have is a huge gene pool, with diverse species that have advantages with certain areas. The diversity is caused by mutation (naturally) and they just run around minding their own business. However, nature likes to be an asshole and kill off everything. So, in their attempt to make God cry, only the species that can withstand the wrath of nature survive and reproduce, and the cycle keeps on going.
Um... No... You are essentially saying that we can keep jumping off a cliff until wings sprout, which is genetically impossible. Read what I said again then respond.
What would be the needed condition for us to be able to sprout wings? Because I'm all for it? I imagine it'd have to start with destruction of all technology and tools, and then a prime food source being only airborne and food on the ground slowly becoming unable to sustain us spread out through millions of years?
If that's the way it worked though we'd probably undergo changes before that, revert to a more primal state. (this scenario barring any form of tools or technology) Evolving to hunt what prey is left on the ground better first?
That'd probably make us more likely to evolve into being able to live off of scavenged meat possibly other dead humans? Do any animals commit cannibalism habitually? What I'm asking is are any animals known to kill and eat their own for sustenance? We would probably evolve into feral cannibals before we would develop wings to catch the flying food source.
Evolution as I understand it only occurs over millions of years at a crucial moment when the species must make the choice so to speak, evolution or extinction.
That's what i was trying to say - you combined the gene pool [speciation - the process in which one group of animals splits into several], hammer and anvil [each starting to develop different characteristics...] , penis and vagina [...as generations go by]
in one constructed text.
speciation is not just the combining of two gene pools.
idk wtf is hammer and anvil unless a) the actual hammer and actual anvil tools, or those bones in the ear.
the penis arises from from gene expression on the Y chromosome, this causes the clitoris to become the penis; in terms of evolution, idk if this has any significance.
there are a couple of easy read books on the subject by richard dawkins who is somewhat famous in the field. otherwise you can get on good ol' pubmed and keyword search evolution of "whatever" and see what pops up, be prepared for a lot of genetics though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Tigers would no longer be the species of tigers if they evolved wings though, and we are not talking in current form.
And I agree, tigers and wings are really a crappy example.
Intelligent Design technically is an "intelligent being" not referencing the biblical deity.
I know this. I was just going off topic. Lol.
Indeed, and they have every right to believe in whatever they want. But the scientific community rarely, if ever, puts up with people who attempt to hinder scientific progress.
If that is true, then that begs the question of where did the aliens come from, did other aliens create them, and did other aliens create those aliens, etc. It's simply illogical. Yes, there is a slim chance that we were created, but that is very unlikely.
Also, long time no see phrozen.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
If you're not an evolutionist, biologist, or something of that sort, you should not try to prove to me that your position is the right one, because evolution is a VERY complex topic, which is why there are so many misconceptions, misunderstandings, and so on, that I have little reason to believe you actually know what you're talking about any more than I do.
And yet every atheist and their mother believes in it just because it's the common scientific ground. And they keep trying to pretend it's simple, and just because they can read some article or some book on it they understand it. I read those articles. They are complex. They require shit ton of knowledge I do not have, people on this forum do not have. Biology, genetics, physics. Like that "luminescence" thing you brought up, do you actually understand what that is, and what it does? I seriously doubt it. I know enough in my field to know I can tell people rubbish and they won't know the difference. I know enough in my field to know the internet is RIDDLED with such rubbish, in fact. Classes in colleges can teach such rubbish. And my field, compared to evolution, is a joke. In complex topics, a lot of stuff can make sense without being true, I don't see how evolution is exempt from that.
And I'm not willing to waste 5 or more years of my life on studying a topic that has no use to me just to argue it. And until I study it for 5 or more years, I have no business believing into something I do not understand, do I? Not believing is the basic, starter, scientific, skeptic position. I met people who studied evolution for 20 years, and yet many still believe in creation, many still believe in evolution, and some don't know what to believe. There's no consensus on the topic, really. That's why I do not believe in it.
YOUR position on creation is "it's totally wrong and makes no sense and I won't even think about it"
MY position on evolution is "It doesn't make sense to me as of right now, even after thinking about it" Please note I used to believe in evolution and I recall what my reasoning was. It was silly.
My position is "I don't know, I'm leaning to the other one, or they both may be true"
Your position is "I KNOW, the other one MUST BE WRONG, you just DONT UNDEERSTAND"
Who's the real scientific one here? Seems like science lately has lost it's ability to admit it doesn't know the answer.
So please keep your faith to yourself and let people believe what they want to believe, because you are not any more correct than they are simply due to your lack of awareness in the topic.
On the other hand, Irrational still seems to think I'm a Christian or something.
Before you try to reply to ANY of my posts, please learn the difference between organized religion and religion. Until then, stop pretending I'm talking about something I am not and realize how unscientific your position actually is...
I'm sorry but I have to say that's extremely simplistic thinking.
If evolution is true, than that begs the question of where did the matter came from, and did other matter 'evolve'/transform into this matter, etc. It works exactly the same way and comes to the question of "did matter or mind come first", which can be completely irrelevant since matter could have created mind and mind in turn created us, that's why I say evolution and creation are not completely incompatible lol.
We're talking OUR creation here. Not the creation of Earth, or the creation of the universe. It doesn't matter where the aliens came from. We could have been created by humans who have evolved, like in 13th Floor. We could have been created by matter which evolved that was created by aliens.
And why are you saying it's a slim chance? I'm sorry, you don't know SHIT about the universe or how things happen in it so for you to make statements of such certainly is just plain arrogant and highly assumptive, even if relying on our current science. Aliens could have evolved. If you say humans could have evolved, why couldn't have aliens? If that's slim...
Evolution is very unlikely, too, if you ask me. That's an irrelevant question. The first question is, is it possible? If so, the second question is, did it happen? Those are the only two questions that matter. Everything else is not important. Probability comes to time. Time is not important, only life is important. Which is pretty close to what deists believe in, actually, just less specific.
Pantheism is a religion, whether you like it or not, and Einstein was religious. If you refer to the working of the universe in such a way, you believe in something, even if you cannot give it a clear definition.
You should stop pretending religion is some clear cut concept or something that specifically involves 1 God that people worship who has created everything.
interesting fact, about 10% of the modern human genome is comprised of viral DNA. these genes have functions.
i disagree that you can just wikipedia evolution, because that only explains the basic idea. to really understand it youd need to wikipedia genetics, molecular biology, biochem, cell biology and so on, and probably read til next month.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
The evo field is not very clear-cut. Sure, you can read a few books. They may come to a consensus. The way they do, though, may not be incorrect, and to know if it's correct or not, you need that background...
Don't bore her with facts, she'll just get pissy.
Lol, that would be a fun read though.
i like this example because it shows how modern humans are different than humans that were around just a couple hundred or thousand years ago; evidence that we havent stopped evolving.
and id like to point out that this is exclusively genetic. not based on phenotype, like when we like to point out how much taller we are and how our brains are slightly larger than our forefathers, which can be attributed to other factors. this however, is genetic proof that our genome has undergone a change - a hallmark of evolution.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Is this for or against evolution?
Um... Well... I guess you can say it happened like that, but it's not.
One hypothesis of the evolution of man is the ability to stand, walk, and balance on two legs. This enabled the ability for free hands, which helped man compete with other apes. For example, you can use tools to start killing animals, which is better than the primates that you have to compete for food. This also allowed for the development of the brain, which got bigger as time went on.
However, there were a couple problems with bigger brains, with the main one being birth. Babies would not be able to fit through the birth canal. So what did evolution do? Well, babies had to be born prematurely. Now this had a couple consequences, some being good and bad. One bad consequence is that human babies are one of the weakest babies in the animal kingdom. A good thing, however, is the removal of almost all instinctual behaviors. Instincts are developed late pregnancy, and the premature birth killed most of that.
So what does this mean? Well, this meant that humans had to learn almost all their behaviors from their parents, which still stands today. They learned how to act, how to hunt, how to eat, etc. This allowed for further intelligence which was leading to the absolute dominance of homo sapiens. How? Well, armed with this new intelligence, mankind was able to migrate almost anywhere in the world since they became knowledgeable of their surroundings and were able to adapt to it without evolution.
And that's really why mankind is so dominant today. They are able to survive almost anywhere without the need to evolve to adapt to that current area, allowing global, maybe even interstellar, migration.
Thanks for the contribution.
Um... No... Evolution does not work that you keep going underwater, and hope that you eventually grow gills. It works with mutation and natural selection. What you have is a huge gene pool, with diverse species that have advantages with certain areas. The diversity is caused by mutation (naturally) and they just run around minding their own business. However, nature likes to be an asshole and kill off everything. So, in their attempt to make God cry, only the species that can withstand the wrath of nature survive and reproduce, and the cycle keeps on going.
If that's the way it worked though we'd probably undergo changes before that, revert to a more primal state. (this scenario barring any form of tools or technology) Evolving to hunt what prey is left on the ground better first?
That'd probably make us more likely to evolve into being able to live off of scavenged meat possibly other dead humans? Do any animals commit cannibalism habitually? What I'm asking is are any animals known to kill and eat their own for sustenance? We would probably evolve into feral cannibals before we would develop wings to catch the flying food source.
Evolution as I understand it only occurs over millions of years at a crucial moment when the species must make the choice so to speak, evolution or extinction.
idk wtf is hammer and anvil unless a) the actual hammer and actual anvil tools, or those bones in the ear.
the penis arises from from gene expression on the Y chromosome, this causes the clitoris to become the penis; in terms of evolution, idk if this has any significance.
there are a couple of easy read books on the subject by richard dawkins who is somewhat famous in the field. otherwise you can get on good ol' pubmed and keyword search evolution of "whatever" and see what pops up, be prepared for a lot of genetics though.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."