|
December 21st 2012... (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| gumble |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
nothing can be really proven-- science suggests evolution, but that's hypocritical because it's research cannot be empirical, which means that evolution isn't really even scientific... and religion offers faith...
|
research is NOT empirical? I'm an evolutionary biologist (just finished honours, now employed as one), and I can tell you there is empirical evidence for evolution.
I've just finished looking at the evolution of 2 genes within a group of animals, the empirical evidence is in the phylogentic relationships I was able to show, and relate that back to the times of divergence shown in the fossil record.
there are MANY examples of evolution happening in our time. For example, a researcher has had bacteria growing for 20 years in the same conditions, and there are now some of them that have evolved to develop twice as fast and are twice as big.
there are examples of speciation of groups of flies and other insects which have happened in peoples life times.
and of course there are all the transitional fossils and living animals such as lung fish and amphibians which also show evolution has happened and continues to happen all the time.
Basically, think of evolution as a framework for understanding the relationships between the organisms we see to day, to explain biology, ecology and diversity. Calling it non-scientific makes you look like a bellend.
Im guessing you come from a background which is conflicting with this.
If you want to deny evolution, you are more then welcome to, and for many years growing up i was a strict creationist. Now i'm a scientist, and the point is simple: we have the fossils, we win.
oh arrogance, how i love thee :) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by gumble
research is NOT empirical? I'm an evolutionary biologist (just finished honours, now employed as one), and I can tell you there is empirical evidence for evolution.
I've just finished looking at the evolution of 2 genes within a group of animals, the empirical evidence is in the phylogentic relationships I was able to show, and relate that back to the times of divergence shown in the fossil record.
there are MANY examples of evolution happening in our time. For example, a researcher has had bacteria growing for 20 years in the same conditions, and there are now some of them that have evolved to develop twice as fast and are twice as big.
there are examples of speciation of groups of flies and other insects which have happened in peoples life times.
and of course there are all the transitional fossils and living animals such as lung fish and amphibians which also show evolution has happened and continues to happen all the time.
Basically, think of evolution as a framework for understanding the relationships between the organisms we see to day, to explain biology, ecology and diversity. Calling it non-scientific makes you look like a bellend.
Im guessing you come from a background which is conflicting with this.
If you want to deny evolution, you are more then welcome to, and for many years growing up i was a strict creationist. Now i'm a scientist, and the point is simple: we have the fossils, we win.
oh arrogance, how i love thee :) |
Thank christ someone has their noodle screwed on properly. The "theory" of evolution is more factual and has more evidence to support it than just about any "theory" known to man. It is fact until someone else can provide a more accurate and compelling argument that explains more and has more evidence to support it. Talking of it in "theoretical" terms is absolute nonsense, and a typical fallacy utilised by persons of faith deliberately trying to undermine science.
Compared to all other belief systems, science is god. And it does me no small amount of annoyance when people compare religion and science as if they're different sides of the same coin, which they plainly are not. I mean theology for sake - "the study of the unknowable" gee, must take a lot to be an expert theologian! :haha:
I also find the notion of people undermining the truths reached through scientific endeavour and spreading them via the personal computer to be a more than a little disingenuous. If science was so shakey and open to interpretation, how the did we just land a buggy on mars? |
|
|
| Aesthetic |
| i believe in god, but i also believe science plays an important part in the world. science explains the factual, religion explains the faithful |
|
|
| batemanscott |
| quote: | Originally posted by gumble
research is NOT empirical? I'm an evolutionary biologist (just finished honours, now employed as one), and I can tell you there is empirical evidence for evolution.
I've just finished looking at the evolution of 2 genes within a group of animals, the empirical evidence is in the phylogentic relationships I was able to show, and relate that back to the times of divergence shown in the fossil record.
there are MANY examples of evolution happening in our time. For example, a researcher has had bacteria growing for 20 years in the same conditions, and there are now some of them that have evolved to develop twice as fast and are twice as big.
there are examples of speciation of groups of flies and other insects which have happened in peoples life times.
and of course there are all the transitional fossils and living animals such as lung fish and amphibians which also show evolution has happened and continues to happen all the time.
Basically, think of evolution as a framework for understanding the relationships between the organisms we see to day, to explain biology, ecology and diversity. Calling it non-scientific makes you look like a bellend.
Im guessing you come from a background which is conflicting with this.
If you want to deny evolution, you are more then welcome to, and for many years growing up i was a strict creationist. Now i'm a scientist, and the point is simple: we have the fossils, we win.
oh arrogance, how i love thee :) |
I have read quite a bit that says we still haven't found the so called 'missing link' between modern day man and the 'monkeys', something about missing chromosomes or something like that.
Can you explain this to me?
(not refuting what u were saying btw, Im geniunely interested and have little knowledge of it all) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aesthetic
i believe in god, |
really? doesn't he hate fags though? :conf: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
I have read quite a bit that says we still haven't found the so called 'missing link' between modern day man and the 'monkeys', something about missing chromosomes or something like that.
Can you explain this to me?
|
the point is that there is no "missing link" there is just one long, long chain. every time scientists fill one "gap" with a new fossil, all creationists see is two new missing spaces. |
|
|
| sunrise3500 |
wtf is wrong with you people
...
I'm surprised no one has thought of this yet.
But why don't we have a party.
Now I'm guessing we want to do this on the eve, so Dec 20th 2012? To welcome in the 21st?
Note, this appears to be a Thursday night, so don't complain you have work the next day, besides it's just before christmas, so if you're not already on leave by then, then it'll most likely be your last day. (maybe in 2012 christmas isn't even celebrated anymore zomg)
Who's down? Can't say it's late notice.
'TA end-of-the-worldenium, (but not really, they're just a bunch of suckers, so let's drink and be merry) lol-and-trance-and-debate-athon'.
booya |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by gumble
research is NOT empirical? I'm an evolutionary biologist (just finished honours, now employed as one), and I can tell you there is empirical evidence for evolution.
I've just finished looking at the evolution of 2 genes within a group of animals, the empirical evidence is in the phylogentic relationships I was able to show, and relate that back to the times of divergence shown in the fossil record.
there are MANY examples of evolution happening in our time. For example, a researcher has had bacteria growing for 20 years in the same conditions, and there are now some of them that have evolved to develop twice as fast and are twice as big.
there are examples of speciation of groups of flies and other insects which have happened in peoples life times.
and of course there are all the transitional fossils and living animals such as lung fish and amphibians which also show evolution has happened and continues to happen all the time.
Basically, think of evolution as a framework for understanding the relationships between the organisms we see to day, to explain biology, ecology and diversity. Calling it non-scientific makes you look like a bellend.
Im guessing you come from a background which is conflicting with this.
If you want to deny evolution, you are more then welcome to, and for many years growing up i was a strict creationist. Now i'm a scientist, and the point is simple: we have the fossils, we win.
oh arrogance, how i love thee :) |
I'm sure i've not done anywhere near as much research as you, and i'm saying i don't disagree with evolutionary theory, but the amount of confounding variables in claiming how exactly evolution works are pretty phenomenal, aren't they!?
In 1000 years (after clearly documenting genetic change), maybe evolution will be considered true (and by true i mean not 'probably true', but 'undeniably true')---
fossils are great, but how does science KNOW (again, in the 100% positive sense) what they were!?!
i'm saying that science, as an empirical study cannot hold evolutionary theory as true because the 'proof' of evolution is not empirical: it's a rational creation (we found these fossils, they fit like this, therefore are X)-- empirical truth would be "we've documented the changes of 1000 ancestors, of X creature"
not sure if i'm being clear... :conf:
evolutionary theory is not literally empirical because it relies on too much guess-work, and there's no observation possible: it's also not falsifiable.
p.s: what i was more getting at anyway was that evolution doesn't affect our day-to-day lives, and that's why i said that it's whatever tickles your fancy.
and not that it matters, but my past has nothing to do with my current beliefs: and whose to say these are my beliefs? i'm just offering the other side of the extreme views of science, which claims it knows all (even if it can't prove it). |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
(and by true i mean not 'probably true', but 'undeniably true') |
that's precisely the point, it IS considered undeniable. you won't find a single biologist that doesn't subscribe to the theory of evolution. just because us laymen or sections of the american christians don't understand it doesn't, in any way, challenge its accepted validity.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
p.s: what i was more getting at anyway was that evolution doesn't affect our day-to-day lives |
those that study diseases and viruses might disagree with you ;) |
|
|
| Lilith |
 |
|
|
| Philby |
ok....
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
I'm sure i've not done anywhere near as much research as you,
|
good start
| quote: |
fossils are great, but how does science KNOW (again, in the 100% positive sense) what they were!?!
|
what are you talking about? i don't get this statement. if you find a leg bone you don't KNOW it is a leg bone??
| quote: |
i'm saying that science, as an empirical study cannot hold evolutionary theory as true because the 'proof' of evolution is not empirical: it's a rational creation (we found these fossils, they fit like this, therefore are X)-- empirical truth would be "we've documented the changes of 1000 ancestors, of X creature"
|
im fairly sure that this has been done and is being done right now
| quote: |
not sure if i'm being clear... :conf:
evolutionary theory is not literally empirical because it relies on too much guess-work, and there's no observation possible: it's also not falsifiable.
|
did you read any of what gumble just posted???? what guess work? of course there are guesses. then you search for the answers of those guesses. and you add another piece to the puzzle. gumble just told you he has done a thesis on observing changes in genetics. he just said there have been observed changes in fly species during our lifetimes. why is evolution not falsifiable?? if there is something better that explains what is observed and is tested then evolution is proved false. what about the alternative? how can you falsify some "intelligent designer" waving his arms about and everything magically pops into place???
| quote: |
p.s: what i was more getting at anyway was that evolution doesn't affect our day-to-day lives, and that's why i said that it's whatever tickles your fancy.
|
how can you say evolution doesn't affect our day to day lives? people study changes in animals and bacteria and how they respond to changes in environment or disease or predators. this can all affect the future of humans.
| quote: |
and not that it matters, but my past has nothing to do with my current beliefs: and whose to say these are my beliefs? i'm just offering the other side of the extreme views of science, which claims it knows all (even if it can't prove it). |
the extreme views of religion claim they know it all. there was a time where if you don't agree you get burned at the stake. even when you proved them wrong...... |
|
|
| Philby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Everything. The existance of absolutely everything in the world. You never wonder about where it all came from? Whether it was always there? How something can always be there? etc etc |
42. |
|
|
|
|
