evolution is bullshit

[Jesus On Peyote]

Not everything we learn in school is real and or right.

Tepa how do you feel belittled?

[trixxy3]

Im a bit of a believer in evolution, i mean take a dinosaur for instance, look at its body structure, and you can find so many similarities, bar size in lizards, birds and so forth, just like a morphing over time into different species.

Heres a theory i think is possible: Ancient egyptians somehow are what we know of as aliens, extra terrestials, or people from that era, exited this planet or relocated via flying machines, settled somewhere, evolved into there current form, and will come back when mankind rediscovers the being of the sun and mother earth.

eh, anyway back to my brain.

[MORG]

Tepa, you might be right in that we can never know that we evolved from apes. I can never know that evolution is real in the same way that I can never know that the next time I wake up the sun will be shining.

Science works on probability and given the extraordinary amount of evidence found in support of evolution from so many fields evolution is looking more and more likely.

It is rational, it is logical.

We have mountains of evidence from:

Paeleontology

Comparative anatomy/physiology

Computer modelling/simulation

Lab-based experiments

Field observations

Field experiments

Genetics

etc. etc.

It is the unifying theory of the life sciences.

Given this vast (and ever-growing) bank of supporting evidence I'm inclined to lean this way over some other more improbable ideas (such as creationism) for which we have found no substantial evidence in the history of human endeavour.

(By the way, if someone finds a goat skeleton in permian sediments tomorrow I'll be happy to retract my words.)

Judging from the evidence available to me I am convinced the sun will shine tomrrow. However, I cannot be sure, there are other highly improbable events that might prevent this from happening, like maybe Armageddon. So don't try to tell me the sun will shine tomorrow, cos you don't know.

[narayan]

The old testament is a book of metaphors, stories and lessons. I find it silly what parts people interepret as straight up fact and what they interpret as metaphor. I went to a christian school and many of the faculty in the science department where very devout christians but also well educated, some had been professors at university and none of them would refute the scientific explanations of how humans evolved or how the earth formed from dust. Instead they interepret these things as the true glory and beauty of God.

The bible wasn't written by some guy sitting there watching God (old testament at least) do this and do that. It was written by people who wrote what they understood about life/morality/essence of being from gaining wisdom from what the interepreted as god. Whether or not this wisdom was from the actual God of this universe is merely an act of faith (Hence the word religion).

None of the other major religions have such animosity towards science like christianity does. Bring on the dark ages.

[Ace]

Oh its just hilarious when people with no idea immediately dismiss the fact that evolution takes place everyday... Jeez, open your eyes, take a look around and you can almost see it happening before you! Christ, we all love the gardening side of things, so how about I use that as an example. It was also one of Darwin's first tests to prove his theory (which it was at that point at time, but has now become scientific fact, like it or not).

He grew beans. He had about a hundred individual plants that he cross bred and then cleaned up the new strains. From here he realised that the genetics were carried across, the same as humans, and that the resulting plants were either stronger or weaker than the parent plants. The weaker strains did not do any where as well, some lasting longer than others, but most died out fairly early. The stronger ones went on and created more generations, due to the fact that their genetics were slightly better suited for the conditions at that point in time.

This is called Natural Selection. Basically put, the better suited, and generally stronger specimens, stood a better chance due to their inherited genetics. This didnt involve a voice from the clouds telling them that one would continue on and succeed and the other fail, and certainly didnt involve some demon from the depths of hell, it was simply NATURAL SELECTION. A proved and well documented scientific process.

This is no different to what would have happened for humans. We all would have evolved (or mutated, for those who cant handle the 'E' word) from a common ancestor (call them adam and eve, if it makes you feel better), and from there many sub/species would have been created. Some would have died out (proved by fossil evidence), others prevailed and evolved as climate/environmental condiditons shaped them into the current species. These are known as humans (homo sapiens) and the apes. The only 'unknown' in human evolution is the missing link.

Simply put, there is a gap in the fossil record that leaves us without the puzzle piece that gives us a clean link to our common ancestor. Its only a matter of time before this is found, and when it is, it'll discredit the religious theory a step further.

Now, I think Narayan put it best. It was written by people who wrote what they understood about life/morality/essence of being from gaining wisdom from what the interepreted as god. And thats exactly it. It was a book about morality (do good and when you die, you'll go somewhere pleasant, do bad/wrong, and you'll spend eternity in hell), and life (taking into account the surroundings and all that they could perceive. The idea of god would have been put forth because the simple question 'where did we come from' couldnt be answered in a simpler way at that point in time. These days, we know that there is much more than meets the eye and it all fits like pieces of the puzzle. A lot of this could not have been accepted until recent times, because TECHNOLOGY made it possible).

It is the question that has made us ponder for millenia and can now be explained in full, but the close minded religious community dont accept it, mostly because they were taught to keep their minds closed to such 'far fetched rubbish', because it disproves their millenia old theory. I am totally for being a good person, following the rules (most of them ) and living life in a civilised way, but the simple threats of 'going to hell if your bad' are discredited by evolution (because there is no need for it), and this could lead people astray. This is probably the biggest problem for some religions - if there is no need to worry about the afterlife (because there probably isnt one of them either), then civilisation may lose its morals.

Hope that has opened some eyes, as I said, I am all for the morale that religion teaches, but other than that, I dont see much need/use for it. It is an old and now defunct way of thinking that has been discredited by FACTS, so I can only imagine its only a matter of time before people start seeing past the blinding light that creationism casts and they can actually see the other side. Really, its not a bad place where the evolutionists mind is - in fact it is probably no worse off than the creationists. The only main difference is that ours has been proven by psysical fact, not beliefs.

And I'm spent.

[Jesus On Peyote]

When do you classify something "evolved"? Like in the case of the chimps (i think it was chimps) that all of a sudden started using tools in the zoo i think it was? Are we gonna call those few chips that used those tools, twimps and classify them as a new species?

Im not totally against the evolution theory, too an extent and understand the science behind it but i personally dont accept the written theory's as pure fact just yet. that said also im not a god dood eaither....anymore

Trixxy,I used to ponder stuff like that too but i could never figure why would they leave us and come back only after we find "the key(s)" it woulda been eaiser from em to tell us, unless its an evil test or experiment.

[Ace]

I'm not entirely sure, but I'd assume that evolution would simply classify when one species has mutated enough to be genetically unique from the parents. That being said, everyone and everything is genetically unique, even between siblings and or identical twins. This is not what I mean - I mean something that has changed almost completely.

For example: Take a T. bridgesii and cross it with a T. pachanoi. The resultant strain will be a cross strain. Now afaik, this will not be a completely stable generation - i.e. it will have a few different looking offspring and their offspring will be unusual too. This needs to be bred out of the generation by further cross breeding and back breeding. Unfortunately I know very little about genetics, but hopefully someone else can make more sense of what I'm getting at.

Once a strain from the original has stabilised, this is a new strain. AFAIK, in nature this would be generally considered a different species (if the new strain is completely different from its ancestors, both visually and genetically), but when its done in a lab or in cultivation, its just called a strain. But this is just an example, I'm sure there are plenty of other much easier to explain and understandable ones are out there.

In the case of your 'Twimps', that wouldnt be called a new species, simply because they are still chimps who have just gained an ability. With time, they may evolve due to this new found ability - perhaps gain longer fore fingers for the use of the tools. Then their brains may naturally increase in size to accomodate more learning of toolmanship (very much the process that we came about). With enough changes, they could be called a new species, but I think that it'd be hard to define (I really have limited knowlege on genetics, I hope someone has a little more info to help me out ).

Lol - I'm not out there to say that Creationism is bad or anything, but when creationists simply dismiss evolution because they are too close minded to think outside there boxes, thats what gives me the shits I respect the fact that there may be something bigger than us - but at this point in time, there is absolutely nothing that would prove that theory right, and therefore it is not a scientific fact, but a belief.

I would have also fell into the thought process as Trixxy, I can see that it is certainly a posibility, but like creationism, there isnt enough proof to outweigh evolution and therefore I think its defuct also.

Sorry to get all serious on you guys - just showing you the other side of the arguement. I really look forward to hearing a few good factual responses to these points, as I would really like to see a good arguement based on facts, not just beliefs which hold no value in science. Like it or not - science is here to stay and it has certainly shown us more than anything else.

[occidentalis]

When do you classify something "evolved"? Like in the case of the chimps (i think it was chimps) that all of a sudden started using tools in the zoo i think it was? Are we gonna call those few chips that used those tools, twimps and classify them as a new species?

There is a long running scientific and philosophical debate on what defines a species, and even whether or not 'species' exist at all. Generally, most people use the 'biological species' concept, which defines a species as a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable offspring. However, there are many problems with this concept. Basically, 'species' is an artificial construction that humans are imposing on the world. In many cases there are distinct species and the construct works, but in others there are not.

Therefore 'evolution' occurs when a population is genetically distinct enough from other populations that they can no longer interbreed. This lack of interbreeding can cause a number of further genetic processes (esp. genetic drift and inbreeding depression) which lead to further distinction and speciation.

A 'strain' is not a species, as Ace suggests. It is only when the breeding systems become so different that the new population can not interbreed with the old ones (and your example of Trichocereus/Echinopsis is interesting because it is one of those situations where the biological concept doesn't really make sense).

JOP, if you are interested in this stuff, why don't you read a basic evolutionary biology textbook or even wikipedia? it would not take long to answer these questions for yourself.

[Jesus On Peyote]

I wasent really looking for textbook explanation, more discussion,insights an perspectives,which we got many good ones.

I think iv been more converted on the evolution path coz now that i think about it, by my previous thinking, humans woulda been running around for as long as at least the dinos,however thats retarded coz how would prehistoric life end, and new smaller (theres scientific names for the change,i got no idea what it is) life pops up, and go though their changes till today, all the while humans stayed the same.

ah anyways lol, im converted. Although i still believe there is more to the story that is not known, but the path would be in the right direction.

[Auxin]

Basically, 'species' is an artificial construction that humans are imposing on the world.

Well of course it is

All that humans can conceive of heaven and earth are inherently biased or limited conceptualizations of what understanding of ultimate reality we've been able to sneak a peek of. Once an apple is called "apple" it becomes a non-existant "artificial" intellectual construct that can not fully convey the nature of apple. Its just how the human brain splits up observable phenomena into groups of like-ness.

In a community of psychadelic-ass intellectuals most everyone should grasp that to some extent

i still believe there is more to the story that is not known

Damn straight, thats what makes science fun!

[Ace]

A 'strain' is not a species, as Ace suggests. It is only when the breeding systems become so different that the new population can not interbreed with the old ones (and your example of Trichocereus/Echinopsis is interesting because it is one of those situations where the biological concept doesn't really make sense).

Sorry, I stand corrected - I had a feeling I was going in circles with that example - Creach hit it on the head when it comes to interbreeding. My example could be cleaned up a little and we use pereskiopsis as our missing link between succulents, other 'normal' plants and cacti. From here, pereskiopsis would have spread from possible jungle like areas, and developing spines as a defence mechanism, and then, the environmental conditions might hav changed from a jungle to a sparce forest, then to a barren open land, eventually turning to desert. Through each of these phases of environmental changes, the pereskiopsis would have been forced to adapt or simply die out.

From here, the standard pereskiopsis may have stayed in a fairly jungle like area until modern times, (hence we still have it to this day), but other sprecies of cactus have evolved due to other factors, be it environmental, predators, temperature, etc. Over millenia (a hell of a long time, not over night), it may have formed into species resembling modern columnar species, and some may have branched off (in the family tree) to become smaller globose forms. The links between these may have been lost over time and at this point in time, all we have is the starting point, and various other forms which branched from the Peres.

As time went on, interbreeding became impossible (like a peres x trich or an ario x loph) and hence these are classified as different species and sub species (and strains).

Does that make any sense, or have I lost everyone? I am probably on the wrong track myself, so please forgive any mistakes in this, I'm just trying to give an example us lot could understand.

[devance]

My concept of evolution is of preset patterns that noncognizant life would be immediately start radiating from.

In a depleted environment. And fantastically more fast that the crude and outmoded expression theory of random selection.

Bird, lizards whatever.

Bryce 6 is a artistic software that has the metacreation feature of combining fractal patterns to the more newtonion balls, squares, etc form

Whats the point is the the South American arrow frogs have fractal warning patterns and so warn off more predators.

And so shows that there is fractal biological patternig, not of any importance .

How did it get there?

More of a question is how outmoded theorys metamorphisized into the the various harsh theiry of capitalism, socialism and communism of the 19th centuary are still in existance.

The bible, if examined says the key flaw mentioned that applys to the world economic structe is usary.

Or the concept of money loaned with interest.

Entirely destroying the planet so the bible came up with the solution before the anybody else did if looked at carefully.

[Ace]

Whats the point is the the South American arrow frogs have fractal warning patterns and so warn off more predators.

And so shows that there is fractal biological patternig, not of any importance .

How did it get there?

Entirely destroying the planet so the bible came up with the solution before the anybody else did if looked at carefully.

Mind elaborating a little? I havent heard about the fractal patterns on the poison arrow frogs - I would have thought the bright colours would have been more of a warning than a pattern?

As for how it got there - well, its no different to the stripes on a zebra, they are there for camouflauge and predator warning. There may have been other ancestral species that lacked these bright colours/patterns and died out due to it. A freak gene may have produced the bright colouring/patterns in a few indvidual frogs, and as these mated, the patterns changed thru each successive generation and we now have bright blue, red and yellow arrow frogs. Make sense?

As for the flaws presented in the bible and your other comments, do you mind explaining them (in laymans terms) for the rest of us who havent heard of them?

[Ace]

Another clear evolutionary changed plant - the Venus Fly Trap.

It grows in bogs containing little to no nutrients, only clean water. If it hadnt developed another means of obtaining sustaining nutrients, it would have died out. Hence, it developed the 'traps' as mutated leaves. Environmental factors like this are what push for adaptation or death. Also known as Natural Selection.

And fantastically more fast that the crude and outmoded expression theory of random selection.

Dont quite know what you are getting at here Devance - its all rather obvious that Natural Selection is a working factor in genetics and evolution - adapt or die trying. Do you mind elaborating on what is so 'crude' and 'outmoded' about the concept of natural selection? Possibly some feasible examples of the 'correct' theories?

[devance]

http://www.btinternet.com/~ndesprez/manual...htm#new_project

https://www.internal.pandromeda.com/enginee...urse_Notes.html

http://www.hermes-press.com/number_frequency.htm

------------------------------------

You figure it Ace.

[Ace]

You've lost me completely Devance

So are you saying that because a frog has a fractal pattern (still trying to find info on that), the entire concept of natural selection is outdated and wrong? I'm not quite sure what you are getting at

I have very little doubt that fractal patterns can be found in nature, eg. galaxies, tornadoes, etc, but what has that got to do with evolution? It doesnt prove it either right or wrong, its just a sidestep away from what we are talking about...

[devance]

A bactera has all the genes to become a human being.

So that the common belive that a chimp has all the genes to human they missing the point.

As the combination of genes is important, the chromosomes or the genomes [combination of genes] represents a orchestra not the cello,trumpet or flute player.

How could chimps evolve when based on actual observed behavior of chimps in the wild.

A much more selective process would be the the most lethal within the tribe and fornicative would reproduce[ get rid of the other tribe members would be a more selective evolutionary process].

Doesn't make sense that since as to be a effective hunting force some communication between members would be neccesary and shouting to scare herding animals to a pit, cliff or tree barrior and that would mean they must have had flint tools before language to effectively manage it. To To slaughter the large animals.

Theres only a small amount of cliffs or pits that could have been used at the time and most likely a dangeous experince but must have been not so dangereous if using the right technique which means cultural learning..

[devance]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...l%3Den%26sa%3DN

best image I can get.

By the way arrow tree frogs lose any potency on skin toxin when artificial raised.

The South amierican rain forest must provide a essential ant or knat or whatever for accumulative toxins.

Thats the buzz anyway.

[Ace]

Ok, not 100% sure where you are going with this, but I'll try to break it down.

A bactera has all the genes to become a human being.

So that the common belive that a chimp has all the genes to human they missing the point.

Yes, I gather some bacteria would have enough similar genes to evolve into a human being, as well as a chimp or even a turtle or rhinocerus. What point are they missing?

How could chimps evolve when based on actual observed behavior of chimps in the wild.

chimps havent evolved as far as we have observed, simply because we havent spent millenia studying and recording their actions. We have noticed however, in the past couple years, chimps using tools for gathering and even hunting food. Is that not enough to show that they are advancing (and evolving over time)?

A much more selective process would be the the most lethal within the tribe and fornicative would reproduce[ get rid of the other tribe members would be a more selective evolutionary process].

Not sure what you mean here, but it is a selective process that forces an organism (be it an amoeba or a bird) to adapt. At times, genes may throw out a mutation (no different to a crestate or monstrose cactus) that doesnt appear to have any use. It is these at times random mutations that encourage drastic changes between species, or even within species - look at humans. We have africans who are naturally darker in colour due to increased melatonin (among other things, no doubt) to aid in protection from the intense african sun. Then we have pasty skinned europeans who didnt need excess melatonin due to a much less intense heat in the european climates.

These are all mutations that have aided the human civilisation. Same can be observed (to some extent) in mushrooms. Take P. cubensis (for all you mushie lovers). In some areas it naturally colonises faster than others, usually due to climate as well as genetics. With enough time, cubies from Mexico might develop enough characteristics that define them as different to the Aussie strains to eventually be incompatible and hence create another species.

Doesn't make sense that since as to be a effective hunting force some communication between members would be neccesary and shouting to scare herding animals to a pit, cliff or tree barrior and that would mean they must have had flint tools before language to effectively manage it. To To slaughter the large animals.

Theres only a small amount of cliffs or pits that could have been used at the time and most likely a dangeous experince but must have been not so dangereous if using the right technique which means cultural learning..

Yes, commuication is necessary to make pack hunting effective. But communication doesnt need to be as advanced as human languages. A simple bark or grunt may be all is needed for two animals to communicate, but not only sound is used - there is also body language and facial expressions.

What makes you think flint tools were necessary to have been used before language development? What difference would that make on evolution?

I could imagine that finding such areas for ideal hunting would have been rather difficult, but as soon as they were found, they would have been used very efficiently until they were spent, I would imagine. Then the tribes would simply move to the next best area.

All that aside, I still have no idea where you are going with your posts devance.

[Ace]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...l%3Den%26sa%3DN

best image I can get.

They certainly are beautiful!

[Ace]

I just went and had some lunch and came across this small article in an old magazine - talk about timing! :

From 'The Bulletin' April 11, 2006, pg 14-15

Toad Red: snakes on the case

Nature - Anthony Hoy

Evolution works in wondrous ways - as changes to snakes endangered by cane toads reveal.

Australia's snakes have gone on the offensive in the evolutionary war against cane toads.

Snakes are highly susceptible to deadly toad toxins, however the two species facing the highest impact from toads - the red-bellied black snake and the green tree snake - appear to have decreased their head size since exposure to toads. This decreases the probability of these snakes eating a toad large enough to be fatal. Other snakes also appear to have significantly increased body size since exposure to toads - a defensive mechanism that is now allowing them to eat large toads with no ill effects.

The research findings, by University of Sydney academics Ben Phillips and Richard Shine, have been reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States.

But the evolutionary news is not all good. Another Sydney University study has confirmed that cane toads are growing faster, longer legs. Researchers clocked cane toads moving up to two kms in a single night - as much as 5 times further than their predecessors travelled in the years following their introduction in 1935. This speed is thought to be arming the cane toad with an invasive advantage.

According to Shine, when the cane toad was first introduced to Queensland as a biological control agent to prey on the sugar cane beetle, its legs accounted for 35%-40% of its body length. The leg to body ratio is now as high as 45%.

Evidence of adaptive evolution of the red-bellied black snake and green tree snake was revealed by comparisons with specimens collected over more than 80 yrs. In contrast to these species, two species at low risk from toads - swamp snakes and keelbacks - 'showed no consistent change', the researchers wrote.

Phillips says at least 50 species of Australian snakes were potentially impacted by toads, 'and the majority of those species are poorly equipped to deal with a likely dose of toad toxin'.

'Our results clearly indicate that snakes show increased resistance to toad toxin, decreased preference for toads as prey and adaptive morphological change as a consequence of exposure to toads,' Phillips says.

'These changes appear to be evolved in less than 70 yrs, or approximately 23 snake generations. This suggests that at least some species will now evolve to co-exist with toads.'

~~~~~~~~~~~~

A bit of an interesting article, hope it fits in here ok, well worth a quick read anyway

*Please note, I simply uploaded this information (took longer to type than I thought!), it may or may not be copyright (cant see anything in the magazine to say so), so if the mods would like me to delete, please let me know.

[ENtiTY]

Hahaha ! The old evolution vs creation / Science vs Religon debate.

What a waste of time!

Ppl believe what they want to beleive no matter what conflicting evidence is found. They see what they want to see from a perspective that supports their beliefs.

No one wants to accept that their core beliefs are false and have to change their comfey and familiar perspective on life.

Personally I agree with the thread title, evolution is bullshit. Life walks way to fine a line to of happened by chance. Life is such a delicate balance of intricate variety and variability all working together for one purpose, to continue. A higher intelligence is at work, the complexities that allow life to flurish are beyond comprehension.

I agree natural selection is something that happens everyday of the week, its part of life. Not evolution by any means but adaptation to changing environments.

Thats my opinion and belief.

At any rate no one can prove beyond doubt either way so arguing for or against is a waste of time Another one of my opinions hehe.

Take care all.

[MORG]

Hahaha ! The old evolution vs creation / Science vs Religon debate.

What a waste of time!

It's not a waste of time. If it was you wouldn't have posted your own feelings on it.

I have lost the urge to try and communicate my feelings to others though. It's like arguing a point in different languages.

The logical language of sense and the language of illogical nonsense

[Hagakure]

found another classic video

 

these nutters are incredible. who needs parody?

[devance]

It's not a waste of time. If it was you wouldn't have posted your own feelings on it.

I have lost the urge to try and communicate my feelings to others though. It's like arguing a point in different languages.

The logical language of sense and the language of illogical nonsense

-----------------------------------

I know the feeling entirely.

Just want to be a hermit and not be a amusing or even helpful adjunct too at best have a stream of consciouness going on that views one as furniture.

A new perceptional style is in order.

As in a macroquatumphysics style.

Is more than a guess.

So hope thats the case.