Human Evolution Theories

it causes disgust for a good reason...

many people already have a messed up .. off kilter distorted view of what evolution really is.. so for them to now get it more twisted by adhering to the definition implied in the word "devolve" is cause for concern!

its no wonder questions are asked like " if humans came form monkeys, why are there still monkeys around".. these type of questions are fueled by a lack of understanding of biological evolution. the word devolve adds to it by making one think that the evolutionary process involves "improvements" and "advancement"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WamukotaX

If I were a "peer reviewed scientist" would you accept it?

---

good question.. the answer is yes.

if the word was peer reviewed and explained in a biological journal as having some merit and meaning within the realm of biological evolution.. i would be forced to happily accept it...

in order for this to happen.. the fundamental definition of evolution would first have to be changed and the rationale for its change would have to be successfully defended

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My First Timbs

good question.. the answer is yes.

if the word was peer reviewed and explained in a biological journal as having some merit and meaning within the realm of biological evolution.. i would be forced to happily accept it...

in order for this to happen.. the fundamental definition of evolution would first have to be changed and the rationale for its change would have to be successfully defended

---

I rest my case.

im simply demonstrating how within the discipline there is basically a "quality control"

that qc is carried out by the act of peer review where every change, or addition to a theory must go thru rigorous skepticism and proof before it can be accepted and categorized within the recognized nomenclature

teh word devolve has yet to do this. and more importantly in doing so, it would change the very definition of evolution.

LOL
You guys answer nothing then want to close the thread.

Anyways, I am over it. It's a one-sided discussion.

Did someone say close this thread??

ok
last call for more questions/rebuttals.

Peace timbs

The reason why I feel evolution is so offensive is because it strives to prove that true human origin is less than divine.

Im not a professional scientist but, I do have respect for what you do.

I think it goes way deeper than scientific formulas...human origin and essence is undoubtedly supreme. Your "evolution" leaves no room for human genius.

It doesn't get to the point of anything...in fact it does nothing but confuse and cover the true purpose and invention of human existence.

So, no I can't speak the jargon with you but, my common sense tells me the jargon of evolution is confusion.

Peace

peace

i understand exactly what u are saying but ultimately most people who are evolutionists think totally different than what u are stating.

when u say that evolution basically confuses everything and makes our existence "less than special", to us, the "evolutionists" it does exactly the opposite

the theory of evolution provides us with the knowledge of exactly what our origins are and our place in the universe.. embracing it provides us with a sense of wonderment, awe and reverence and respect for the world we live in!

to me.. there is nothing more awe inspring and "special" than embracing our evokutionary past and present and possible future.

evolution doesnt take awy from the joys of life.. in my opinion it actually makes life much more enjoyable on a "spritual level" !

if we are the result of a naturl occurence and their is not necessarily a divine thing about us.. this means that life is very very precious! its precious because we are lucky to be here conversing with eachother! we are lucky that the dinosaurs dies off and allowed mammals to take the throne!

there is nothing more awe inspiring and spiritual than realizing that we are indeed special!

the problem is that the spiritual creationist viewpoint is that it proclaims we are specially created but not because of an unslefish awe of nature, but rather a selfish humanistic bias!

in addition.. if common sense tells u there is something fishy about evolution .. this basically means that u must learn more about it and approach it from a totally objective unemotional view.

evolution doesnt take away from our specialness.. in my opinion it wholeheartedly adds to it a million times more than creation by a divine deity

Peace

This is what I just got from your last post:

Religion is not logical

Evolution blends human existance and nature to create a whole "pictue" or explanation

There is no spook in the sky ( divine deity)

Evolution is more politcally correct than saying that the blackman is God

I understand where you are coming form now. I didn't say that we are special, I said divine. I mean we are whole. We are complete and we had to have started out that way.

If we didn't then there is no Sun, Moon, or Stars. Our whole atmosphere depends on our exsistance. I just don't agree with you but ...I respect your views.

Peace

Quote:

---

Religion is not logical

---

as long as we define religion as an outward or inward act by which man shows appreciation and worship to a higher being.. i say yes.. it is illogical

Quote:

---

Evolution blends human existance and nature to create a whole "pictue" or explanation

---

yes..but humanity is only a small part of it..evolution takes into account all living things ... humanity is a small part of it.

Quote:

---

There is no spook in the sky ( divine deity)

---

correct

Quote:

---

Evolution is more politcally correct than saying that the blackman is God

---

not really sure what u mean by this.. i dont believe the black man is god

Quote:

---

I mean we are whole. We are complete and we had to have started out that way.

---

how do u come to this conclusion that we were created like this and did not evolve thru cumulative modicfication.are u saying that only humans we created whole or all living things were created as is?

Quote:

---

If we didn't then there is no Sun, Moon, or Stars. Our whole atmosphere depends on our exsistance

---

why? our atmosphere doesnt depend on us? im not sure if u are speaking literally or metaphorically?

ultimately and more importantly.. to deny evolution is to go aganist the evidence!

its not even a matter of "did evolution ever occur and does it occur",, because this has been put to rest for well over 100 years.

the argument and debate now is whether evolution still occurs, how will it manifest itself later and what can we do to alter it and control it.

I would think that you were familiar with that statement - the black man is God...but if not I will do the details.

The original human could not have been "created". That would suggest an intelligence higher than his self.

Why is it that the explantion of evolution is allowed to trump the idea of "humanity", by procaliming it seperate and distinct than that of scientific nature?

That is what I mean when I say that we are whole...you can seperate church and state, but you can never seperate the human body from the human intelligence.

Iam speaking literally and metaphorically when I say our atmosphere depends on us. Is it not scientifically proven that human pollution has caused changes in our atmosphere?

If there were no humans to till the ground, what would become of this earth ?

Metaphorically, we are perfect reflections of the universe and its structure and it's contained revolutions.

Peace

Peace

I didn't mean to go into debate with you. I feel ill equipped since I have not studied biology as exstensively as you have so I was expressing opinion and not attempting to ignore your "evidence"

How would evolution state that humans are less Divine? Everything you see is Divine, even what you think is negative from your frame of reference. Humans are no "better" or 'divine" than any other living creature.

It amazes me that almost every single religion and/or philosophy is the same. They all tear eachother apart and think they are all wrong, and theirs is the way, but they all strive for the same simplistic goals. To put simple minds at ease and say, "Hush, child eveything is ok, you are so special, you are the most precious thing in the universe and god loves you the best". It's childish and just shows a weakness in the ego

If you sift thru all the made up garbage people have come up with to make themselves better, there are underlying messages that permeate through every contemplative philosophy, from the eastern beliefs, to the Big Three, to all the new age bs, to even science. It's those messages that are always ignored. Once you realize that everything you see, you are a part of, than you can begin to get a better understanding.

mamith= elephant= evolution

haha

Please Go Visit The "apllies 2all W/a Brain" Thread. Thanks!!!

dig'n into evidence,not pre evidence but turns up through time while zhit advances,anyway i like to look into zhit before i jump the gun

i think itz phony,cause some won't agree with me on itz findings

Ok, here’s what I think: First of all, there is – as far as I know – no proof that all life came from one common ancestor, the first cell. But it is still foolish not to assume that, simply because there is no better theory than evolution. Here’s why:
1. The theory of evolution is able to explain the biological diversity we observe today while not depending on any other assumptions other than the laws of nature.
2. The theory is supported by an incredibly huge amount of circumstantial evidence, both on the macroscopic and microscopic scale.
3. In fact the theory is so good and reliable, that it is possible to work with it (evolutionary principles in IT, social and biological sciences...), as well as predict and explain even the smallest abnormalities (such as why horses and donkeys can have offspring together).
After Timbs very nice explanations most of the people seem to at least agree that we are all related to all other life forms (even those that don’t use oxygen metabolism and sun light as an energy source). Fine! So where is the evidence that one species descends from another? Where are the transition forms?
Here it is essential to be aware of the fact that fossils are actually quite rare. We have been able to find only a handful of skeletons from dinosaurs, prehistoric animals or early humans. Furthermore (as Timbs already said) evolution does not take place at a constant rate, but instead the pace depends on the degree of change in the environmental conditions. Therefore it can be assumed that transition states are not very long-lived. So, if there’s thousands or even millions of years between fossil findings it is not very likely that we will stumble across a lot of common ancestors/transition states of mammals anytime soon.
However, it’s a lot different if you look at the microscopic domain. With high reproduction rates and short generation times viruses and bacteria and other small genetic elements are prime models for the study of genetics and evolution. E.g. by exposing bacterial populations to environmental changes you now have billions of billions of chances in a short time period to screen for genomic adaptations. You can study surviving bacterial populations and look at the genetic and molecular basis of the adaptation. In each and every case you will realize that the difference between the original bacterial genome and the one of the adapted population is of exactly the same kind as the difference between the genomes of unrelated species. In most cases you will find substitutions in the genetic code that will account for a different (enhanced, lowered or completely changed) function of a cellular component. And then you will find that this change in function will explain the higher survival rate of the adapted bacterial population under the changed environmental conditions. Example: Raise the temperature and you will find that most of the adapted populations will have mutations in genes that encode for cellular components that are known for their role in the safety mechanisms of cells under high temperatures (e.g. so called heat-shock proteins). Hundreds and thousands of those experiments have been conducted (I have done it personally, and I’m sure Timbs has done it too) and you can read about them in detail if you look into any (bio)scientific magazine. Maybe you have done similar experiments yourself if you are a gardener or farmer and ever bred plants. In fact, each of those experiments is a pretty strong proof for the theory of evolution, because the difference between species (which by the way is based on a completely arbitrary definition) only depends on the quantity of such mutations. Or in other words: Each of the adapted “quasispecies” is a transition state organism (albeit in the very first stages...). You can also think of them as different variants (or “races” if you are one of those guys...) of the same species, because they underwent slight adaptational changes due to environmental conditions. If you invest enough time with your bacteria eventually you will be able to breed one species from another – just by changing the environmental conditions.

Peace.

Can somebody define what evolution is? Now what they 'believe' or 'think' it is, but what it is in the scientific community.

"In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics, or traits of a population of organisms. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

You can trust these sources. I checked them, and I'm a biological scientist as well.

A few more thoughts:
You can drop a stone one billion times. If you are here on earth I'm sure you will agree that it will fall to the ground every single time. The theory may be hard to prove but there hasnt been one documented and approved case in which shit didnt drop into the toilet - eventually... So wouldn't you agree that it makes sense to assume a gravitational force since the shit is dropping so reliably? For me it makes life much easier to rely on gravity so that I do not need to be at some Superpower's mercy everytime I wish to empty my bowels... Relying on gravity helped us to go to the moon, put satellites into space, program (more or less) realistic computer games and countless other things! Well, it's the same with evolution.

Well, if you do not trust natural sciences at all that's a whole different issue.
Of course you can assume all kinds of things and still come to logical conclusions based on that (at least if you do trust logic). I suppose this is called philosophy (no disrespect). Now you can go doubt your own existence and that's fair enough. But when you run into a wall you still say "ouch". This is because with a limited set of assumptions unfortunately it's not possible to explain the universe and all our questions, ways and actions by logical deduction only. Well, at least it has not been done yet. So in a way it's a matter of common sense and pragmatism! And until then it seems wise to observe nature, propose hypotheses and see if they stands the test of time. That is what science is, in a nuthshell. Stop, look, listen, observe and respect! Then formulate a verifiable or falsifiable(!!!) hypothesis and hope nobody can falsify it. Simply put: If you assume everything and keep on taking out the false you are approximating the truth.
The other option is to hold on to esoteric, pseudoscientifc and/or religious beliefs that are based on huge sets of assumptions and propose unverifiable hypotheses. Ok, that's it. I'll go take a shit. *makeaprayer*

Oh, one last thing: I don't want to disrespect any religious or esoteric beliefs. Not even trying to refutre them! After all, our understanding of the universe is far from complete, even when it comes to physical laws. If we proceed to find out about those things and improve our experimental techniques, we will be able to confirm some of the beliefs and previously unverifiable hypotheses can then be tested. And in fact, people need to think the unthinkable for science to move on. So we need people to push the borders of mind, body and soul...

It's all love.

Peace.

Strange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies

LMAO if the world was covered in water we would evole gills?!

Do you know how unlikely that is? Its not possible. About as possible as fish coming on land.

I wanted to make an evolution thread but I don't think it could be discussed maturely...

---

Like Kevin Costner in that movie 'Waterworld'. Dope flick. BUT no really on the real it would than be like reverse evolution. Everything started in the ocean. The eveloution of how man and every life-form on land came to be actually started in the ocean. It goes like this earth was created by the right conditions being met in outerspace, gasses or chemical compounds coming together in the right place at the right time. The earth was or still is covered by 90% water. So amfibiens or underwater life forms existed first. Than evolved into reptilians or reptiles, which than evolved into mammals. Human beings belong to the race of mammals. You can see that there are certain reptilians or reptiles like alligators and crocodiles that live in both water and land. And also can see their resmeblance to their cousins the snakes which exist in both environments, purely underwater snakes that only breath underwater, to land snakes that do not. Then you can see other examples like Seals that are in fact mammals that can breathe underwater for an enormous amount of time. Dolphins are another perfect example of this evolutionary theory. And from there on it is pretty easy to see how the evolution of animals took place on land into the various forms of the animal kingdom that we have on land today that make up the mammals. Lions there cousins the tigers, plus bears, gorrillas, monkeys , and so forth then man. In between all that alot happened of course, Elephants, girraffes, antelopes, ants, etc. Very diverse and it went into many different directions.

It must be noted that evolution takes millions of years or even more. SO yes it is very slow, a very slow process and as stated by somneone else in this thread we will never most likely see it happen ourselves. But if we do that would surely be something to see no doubt.


:list: :clap: :nerdy: It can even be broken down into molecules if you really wanna take it there, to the very beggining of the universe even. The end and the beggining are the same. In the end we and everything all go back to that which is the essence of our creation, unconcious matter or the building blocks of life even. Molecules and particles unconcious life (unconcious to us anyway) which then in fact became atoms the building blocks of life as we know it.

The cycle of all life goes the beggining is the end. The end is a new beggining. Therfore the end and the beggining are the same.