Debate and Discussion

Do you believe in evolution?
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 8:20PM, July 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Hey guys, remember when this thread was about evolution? Those were the days, huh?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
Aurora Moon at 10:09PM, July 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Sorry, it all started going off track when Joeychips posted that shitty list of so-called “sciencists” who weren't really scienicsts but liked to pretend they were.

I just had to point out that the whole point of science and being an scienicst was to be OPEN to all things, even on evoultion despite your personal feelings. After all, as Dueeast said: “There are no absolutes in science, only theories that have yet to be disproven or someday added to and/or improved upon. That's the point of science. It's the pursuit of knowledge to better understand how things work and try to make things better.”

Honestly, I had no idea that it would get off track like this as seeing I was only responding to Joeychips.
and ranting a little bit about certain people like those “sciencists” on Joeychips' list of quotes, who feels like they HAD TO BE RIGHT ALL THE TIME so they join an certain proffession so that they can act like they know it all without being obivous that they're simply jackasses.

Okay, back to evolution…

Did you ever wonder what we would be like in the future if we evolved again?

I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
TnTComic at 3:28AM, July 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Aurora Moon
I just had to point out that the whole point of science and being an scienicst was to be OPEN to all things, even on evoultion despite your personal feelings. After all, as Dueeast said: “There are no absolutes in science, only theories that have yet to be disproven or someday added to and/or improved upon. That's the point of science. It's the pursuit of knowledge to better understand how things work and try to make things better.”

Curiosity about the unknown is the motivating factor of a good scientist. But if nothing was absolute in science, there would be no point in figuring anything out.

Like I said earlier, just look to the periodic table for a gaggle of absolutes. That table represents hundreds of years of research and painstaking experimentation to figure out the most rudimentary level that our universe exists on. We know that if you have a proton and an electron, you've got Hydrogen. You don't sometimes have Argon. You've always got Hydrogen. Put two Hydrogens with an Oxygen, and you've got Water. Always. 100% of the time. It is absolute. Chemistry is based on Absolutes. Physics is based on absolutes. Science is based on absolutes.


Aurora Moon
Did you ever wonder what we would be like in the future if we evolved again?

We are currently evolving, as is everything else. We're getting taller. We're living longer. Our pinky toes are disappearing. Our tail bones are leaving. We have organs that don't do anything meaningful, other than endangering our lives when they rupture. When we breed interracially, the results are an amalgam of the two participants. So i'd guess that our future is of a taller and older people who are indistinguishable, racially, from one another. But its hard to say, since our species has made it possible for our reproduction to have little to do with our physical fitness for offspring.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
DemonSaintDante at 5:36AM, July 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 6-25-2007
And lets have the LAWS OF SCIENCE thing die before we get yelled at more.

Yep we have grown like a foot or two sense the old olden days… i know… i am so accurate
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:10PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 6:03AM, July 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Okay, so fine. Nothing is absolute, but the percentage of possibility is so low that it's not even worth caring about. Like “humans exist.” Well, it's always a possibility that this is just a big dream. The possibility of this, however, isn't anything anybody cares about. Disregarding evolution is like disregarding the Holocaust, lunar landing, Tupac's death etc..

Also in the future we will have no hair.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
DemonSaintDante at 8:24AM, July 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 6-25-2007
exactly and thats the point… nothing will every be 100%…

No hair on our bodies… but technology will be so high that hair on the head will always grow… woo hair growing products.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:10PM
Vagabond at 1:38PM, July 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 93
joined: 1-30-2006
2 + 2 will always equal 4. There are absolutes, and no amount of philosophical pandering will change that. Especially with scientific laws.

(Ok, done now; honest.)
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:38PM
DemonSaintDante at 2:55PM, July 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 6-25-2007
2+2 isn't science… its math.

God dang it i cant let this die…. ahhh back to evolution… (why must i have the desire to have the last word)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:10PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 3:20PM, July 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Any non-believers out there besides joey_chips?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
DemonSaintDante at 4:36PM, July 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 6-25-2007
Hard to debate something when most people agree that evolution is at least possible, and has been proven in many things such as bacteria and virus's.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:10PM
TnTComic at 5:12PM, July 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
DemonSaintDante
Hard to debate something when most people agree that evolution is at least possible, and has been proven in many things such as bacteria and virus's.

Like I said, its proven through breeding. Breeding is forced evolution.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
DemonSaintDante at 5:56PM, July 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 6-25-2007
Yeah… i know… thats why there isn't much debating going on regarding actual evolution.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:10PM
dueeast at 9:49PM, July 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
DemonSaintDante
Yeah… i know… thats why there isn't much debating going on regarding actual evolution.

Or maybe some of us just like to pick and choose our debates. B)

I enjoyed hashing out philosophical applications of science but everyone in this discussion has made it abundantly clear what staunch supporters of evolution they are, and that's perfectly fine. It's not my job to change anyone's mind and I can still enjoy reading the discussion.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
Ludus Pragma at 1:02AM, July 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 33
joined: 11-9-2006
Interesting debate so far.

Do I believe in evolution?

Yes I do. But instead of saying why I do, sighting every thing from zebras to almonds, can someone give me an honest logical reason not to*.


*Aside from the basic doubt everything approach.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:48PM
TnTComic at 4:13AM, July 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
dueeast
DemonSaintDante
Yeah… i know… thats why there isn't much debating going on regarding actual evolution.

Or maybe some of us just like to pick and choose our debates. B)

I enjoyed hashing out philosophical applications of science but everyone in this discussion has made it abundantly clear what staunch supporters of evolution they are, and that's perfectly fine. It's not my job to change anyone's mind and I can still enjoy reading the discussion.

I'm no more a “staunch supporter” of evolution than I am a “staunch supporter” of gravity.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 7:43AM, July 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Well, you see, there are always good reasons something isn't true as well. Go check out Flat Earth Society. They managed to turn a bullshit idea into something that sounds logical. That doesn't, however, make it true.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
dueeast at 7:56AM, July 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
Yeah, I went to their website once. It made my brain hurt (just a bizarre mentality) so I left.

Atom Apple
Well, you see, there are always good reasons something isn't true as well. Go check out Flat Earth Society. They managed to turn a bullshit idea into something that sounds logical. That doesn't, however, make it true.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
dueeast at 8:09AM, July 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
Okay, that's a bit of an over-generalization on my part. I'm sorry if my previous statement offended anyone. I do think my point was clear that, based on the opinions and positions offered thus far in this thread, the vast majority of those who have posted believe in evolution and believe it's foolish (at best) to question evolution's scientific evidence. There's also been some who have stated strong views against religion. To me, that would not make for a very productive discussion as far as debate about evolution. I don't need the headache. :)

TnTComic
I'm no more a “staunch supporter” of evolution than I am a “staunch supporter” of gravity.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
StaceyMontgomery at 8:34AM, July 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
dueeast said:
>

That's true, but it's OK - religion seems to have strong views against a lot of us. I feel really, really comfortable fighting back.

And it's not foolish to question the scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. it is a very smart thing to do. This is why i keep up with what the Creationists and Intelligent Designers and other people say. I read their books and listen to their arguments.

The problem comes in that Evolutionary theory holds up very well. The Scientific evidence is very strong. The various objections to Evolutionary theory, in the end, turn out to be based on very little so far. Obviously, that means debates on the topic tend to feel one sided. If you find it's hard to win arguments, it may be time to reconsider your position.

Of course, Evolution is always at risk - any scientific idea is. Evolutionary theory is falsifiable - at any moment, new evidence could emerge that brings the thing down, and we'll have to start over.

So debating Science always has value, thank goodness! Alas, if only religion worked that way.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
TnTComic at 8:56AM, July 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
StaceyMontgomery
Of course, Evolution is always at risk - any scientific idea is. Evolutionary theory is falsifiable - at any moment, new evidence could emerge that brings the thing down, and we'll have to start over.


For example?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
dueeast at 8:58AM, July 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
Stacey,

I always appreciate reading your posts. You're obviously an experienced debater and you always make a clear effort to be respectful. That's rare and deserves to be acknowledged.

I'm a non-denominational Christian. So while I don't claim a particular denomination, I do claim a faith and a spiritual set of beliefs.

I also was instructed in science back in high school and college and though I'm not a scientist, I do appreciate the sciences.

You raise an interesting point when you stated that “religion has a lot of strong views against us.” A lot of religions do seem to be that way. That's one of the reasons I'm non-denominational.

Anyway, a number of years ago, I would have taken the challenge. But over the years, I've learned to pick and choose my battles. I don't feel that my position is so weak I can't defend it. I just don't need the aggravation of some battles.

I respect that there is a scientific body of evidence for evolution and that there's a lot of work that went into collecting that body of evidence. But when broken down and analyzed, it has not convinced me that the conclusions regarding man and evolution are accurate. I don't wish to debate it, that's my position.

StaceyMontgomery
dueeast said:
>

That's true, but it's OK - religion seems to have strong views against a lot of us. I feel really, really comfortable fighting back.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 9:20AM, July 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
TnTComic
StaceyMontgomery
Of course, Evolution is always at risk - any scientific idea is. Evolutionary theory is falsifiable - at any moment, new evidence could emerge that brings the thing down, and we'll have to start over.


For example?

She doesn't have an example, she's stating that one day there could be one. I'm extremely against organized religion. Drives people to ruin everything. Not all people, just a few.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
TnTComic at 9:27AM, July 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Atom Apple
TnTComic
StaceyMontgomery
Of course, Evolution is always at risk - any scientific idea is. Evolutionary theory is falsifiable - at any moment, new evidence could emerge that brings the thing down, and we'll have to start over.


For example?

She doesn't have an example, she's stating that one day there could be one. I'm extremely against organized religion. Drives people to ruin everything. Not all people, just a few.

I'm quite aware of what she said and meant. I'm asking, since this is a forum comprised of creative people, for an example of something that could “bring down” evolution.

As for Dueeast, I'd like to thank you for jumping into a debate on evolution to let us know that you don't want to debate evolution. That's super.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
dueeast at 9:58AM, July 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
TnTComic
As for Dueeast, I'd like to thank you for jumping into a debate on evolution to let us know that you don't want to debate evolution. That's super.

I don't believe there's anything wrong with responding to posts along the way without jumping headfirst into the main topic.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
StaceyMontgomery at 10:12AM, July 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I can think of things that might falsify Evolutionary theory.

For instance, if you found skeletons of cats that dated from the pre-cambrian period. You just can't have cats older than the first algae, not without an explanation other than evolution. You would have to question the whole logic of Evolution if you found such skeletons.

Or, we might discover that every DNA molecule is encoded with a message, in Ancient Hebrew, that says “All DNA the property of Jehovah, not for commercial use, BTW, Darwin is wrong.” That would sure cast some doubts, wouldn't it?

Or, we could find centaur skeletons tomorrow. Or mermaid skeletons. I mean skeletons of actual chimeras - creatures that are half-horse and half human, or half fish and half human. Evolution just doesnt give us a way to explain chimeras like that.

Or, someone could observe (and record) events that create new species out of thin air. If there was any evidence that say, new species of birds just pop out of thin air from time to time, that would throw evolutionary theory out the window.

Or, someone could discover a mechanism in DNA that prevents mutations from accumulating. If you could prove that it can't happen, we would need a whole new theory, wouldnt we?


Those are a few of the top of my head. They aren't hard to think of. Any scientific idea is falsifiable. of course, some of these ideas sound absurd - because such discoveries would turn everything we know on it's head.

What's even more interesting is that over the years, evolution has faced many very serious challenges. For instance, when Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, he was proposing a process that would take uncounted millions of years - but there was a lot of doubt about how old the world really was. Lots of people thought the world was only a few million years old - maybe just thousands. There just wasn't time for Darwin's ideas of natural selection to have created so much diversity.

So Darwin was making a prediction - the world will turn out to be a lot older than we think.

That prediction came true. We now know the world is billions of years old. Old enough to allow for Darwin's ideas. If the world had turned out to be young, we would have tossed Darwin into the dustbin of history. But it didn't happen that way.

Also, when Darwin wrote his book, genetics had not been discovered. There was no way to establish that Eagles and Bluejays were related. They are both birds, and they have a lot of similarities. But were they descendents of a common ancestor, or just two life forms that had been made in separate creations? Eventually, we did discover DNA. If the DNA of Eagles and Bluejays had turned out to be totally different, it would have been a serious blow to Evolution. But it turns out, bluejays and Eagles do look like very close cousins when you look at their DNA.

Also, when Darwin wrote his book, we had a very limited view of the history of organisms. As fossils were discovered, they totally could have disproven evolution. What if the fossil record had turned out to be rather static, with plants and animals being largely unchanging over time? But that isn't what we found.

The fact is, Evolutionary theory makes lots of predictions that turned out to be true. And there were lots and lots of ways to falsify it over the years. They just didn't work out. Evolution took years and years, and a lot of evidence, before it became accepted as a serious scientific theory.

Of course, those who defend Intelligent Design and say “teach the controversy” are essentially saying “We want our ideas to be treated as being on par with evolutionary theory, but without the generations of testing and evidence!”

I say, if ID has anything useful to say, it will have to establish that in the same way - over time, and with evidence. And of course, they will have to explain how ID is falsifiable. Can anyone name a way that Intelligent Design could ever be falsified?

I cannot.




last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
StaceyMontgomery at 10:46AM, July 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
dueeast:

I don't mean to be belligerent, and I hope I can avoid coming across as too much of a gadfly. This is the “debate” forum after all, and anything anyone says here is likely to be challenged - but that doesnt mean that anyone has any obligation to respond. A good debate might be a pleasant thing to do on Monday but seem like a terrible waste of time on Tuesday.

I do like to debate though - sometimes, it is only through debating that we find out what we really think. Twenty years ago I was pretty much a socialist - but i kept losing debates that way, and I had to reconsider. Now I'm a skeptical capitalist.

I used to be a huge UFO enthusiast - same problem, alas.

And who knows, Evolution looks pretty solid. It would be awfully hard to refute. But amazing things do happen - the universe was woven mostly from surprises, i think.

As for being “non-demoninational” - I get that. If I was religious, I am sure i would have to separate myself from all specific religious authorities. Still, the fact that many people are “non-denominationalism” doesn't change my relationship with religion. I see the major religions of the modern world to be, primarily, misogynistic, hierarchical, anti-humanist and anti-rational (that is, not so much “irrational” as “opposed to rationality” ) . And so I oppose them where I can. I certainly know that they oppose people like me.

We would be better of without them. And the growing number of “non-denominational” people, it seems to me, must agree with me, at least in part.

But Im derailing the “evolution” thread again, my apologies.




edited because my punctuation keeps turning into smilies.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
dueeast at 11:13AM, July 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
Stacey,

I don't want to derail the evolution thread any more than I already have, either. I'll be happy to PQ you my response on this one. :)

StaceyMontgomery
But Im derailing the “evolution” thread again, my apologies.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
DemonSaintDante at 1:34PM, July 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 6-25-2007
you know its funny… i would rather read a hundred little posts than 1 giant one… i hate that about myself…
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:10PM
DemonSaintDante at 2:01PM, July 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 6-25-2007
Atom Apple
Well, you see, there are always good reasons something isn't true as well. Go check out Flat Earth Society. They managed to turn a bullshit idea into something that sounds logical. That doesn't, however, make it true.

I just checked it out… you have to be a very ignorant person to believe half the things they mention… everything they say against the round earth theory has already been explained by science…
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:10PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 2:40PM, July 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
According to them NASA makes that science up.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved