lol yall are killin meOriginally Posted by Robert
I JUST SAID IN THE QUOTE YOU QUOTED OF ME I CAN'T DENY EVOLUTION
if you want to come at me with your own specific idea of what evolution is then I will comment on that -
but no I do not believe that something's core function on earth can change -
in the same way if nitrogen fixing bacteria were to evolve past what it's function is you would not be living right now
.
I made an assumption about what I thought you assumed evolution was and I happened to be correct.I JUST SAID IN THE QUOTE YOU QUOTED OF ME I CAN'T DENY EVOLUTION
Then you defined evolution in your way when you knew exactly what I was talking about.
no I do notbut no I do not believe that something's core function on earth can change
But do you agree that evolution is process by which the genetic make up of a species can change between generations till eventually a new species comes to fruition?
I will assume you see evolution as man coming from monkeys - excuse me if this assumption is wrong -in the same way if nitrogen fixing bacteria were to evolve past what it's function is you would not be living right now
I'm unsure what you mean by "past" it's function. Perhaps you could explain what this means in terms of evolution as I have defined it (rather simplistically) above.
a monkey in an animal with no free will with it's own set of functions, place in the food chain, bound by it's nature, ect. They might evolve into different types of monkeys, but I don't see them turning into a completely separate part of nature from what monkeys do -
I see no reason how or why the consciousness and free will that humans have is a logical adaptive or mutative step up from an animal that is bound by its nature.
obviously nitrogen fixing bacteria must be one of the oldest living forms of life on the planet - it is required for the myriad of living things we have - and it obviously has never mutated or evolved past what it does on earth since the beginning or we would be dead.
.
man didnt come from monkey, man and ape share a common ancestor that has branched...go back to secondary school
Salaam (Peace)...
Ummm...when, exactly, did Darwin's "THEORY" of "evolution" become "actual fact"?
I guess if you repeat something enough times, in enough places, people are just inclined to accept it as true...especially if the origin can be traced back to an individual with a few capital letters behind his or her name...
RM
i think this will help you with your misconception of a theory in science mr.muhammad...
your comment that Evolution is ‘Only a theory’ is something I hear a lot and seems to reflect a misunderstanding of what theories and facts are.
A theory is a structure that explains a set of facts. Thus the theory of evolution – also known as Natural Selection is the concept that explains the ‘Fact(s) of Evolution’. The fact of evolution refers to the numerous observations that confirm that all life is subject to common descent ie descended from a single ancestor and that species have evolved over time to suit their environment. Natural Selection (The theory of Evolution) explains why and how this happens.
Before the current Theory of Evolution (which is basically very similar to that proposed by Darwin) we had a different theory of evolution called Lamarkian Evolution but it was wrong. The facts were the same – it was an attempt to explain why we all come from a single ancestor and evolve to suit our environment, but it was a different mechanism (people inherited learned or developed attributes rather than nature selecting the fittest organism as with Darwin’s Theory. Testing ultimately showed Darwin to be right and Lamark wrong (although some studies show a variation of Lamarkian evolution can occur sometimes).
A hypothesis graduates to a theory when it has been subject to rigorous testing. Darwin’s theory is one of the most tested theories in science. That it still stands is a measure of its strength. To refer to it as ‘only a theory’ does not give it credit for being one of the most repeatedly verified concepts in science. A much stronger theory than Gravity or the Germ Theory of Disease which are generally accepted by the public.
People say ‘only a theory’ to imply it is something about which we are unsure but this is a misunderstanding. Other major scientific theories include the Theory of Gravity which tries to explain the Fact of Gravity (ie the observation that matter attracts other matter at a distance and things fall down).
So Gravity is only a theory, and science is often changing it in an attempt to explain the origin of matter (this is a key focus of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN). However, to say Gravity is only a theory does not imply that Gravity is not a real force in the universe that we feel all the time. Similarly to say Evolution is only a theory does nothing to negate the millions of observation that comprise the fact of evolution and common descent.
I hope that makes sense – ‘theory’ is probably one of the most misunderstood words in science and it is important to get it right if one is to understand the strength of the scientific method.
The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.
People are too stupid to effectively conspire to do anything, but not too stupid to come up with conspiracy theories.
I don't get the "free will" argument.
How does a dog or a monkey not have free will.
All animals, including man, are essentially guided by the natural principles of preservation and gratification.
That being said, most mammals seem to have different dispositions, demeanors, and personalities.
Given the exact same situation, two dogs or monkeys could very well react in different ways, just as two humans might, because of a variety of existential factors.
In theory, if someone were to have infinite knowledge of the history of a human and the intricate chemical processes of said human's brain, wouldn't they be able to predict that human's actions?
Besides the fact that humans brains are more developed(evolved), allowing for a wider range of responses and reactions, how are we fundamentally different from other less-complex mammals?
--youreallfags.
^
Man has the ability to make decisions and act out of a state of unwavering peace, devoid of prejudice, attachment, emotionality etc. Animals cannot do this. They will/must always act out of inbuilt desires, instincts (whatever you want to call them). That being said, most humans don't use their free will and, like you said, end up being guided by natural principles of preservation and gratification.
SHEM HETEP
Req Em Ab
exactly.
most people do not have free will, because they choose not to put it to use. But they could if they truly wanted, or knew how.
if your self image is that of an animal - you will be an animal.
do you not see the irony in that statement?
The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.
People are too stupid to effectively conspire to do anything, but not too stupid to come up with conspiracy theories.
*cough*
irony?
no I don't - but I see you are not a very critical reader.
i could say all people have the ability to lose weight, but most don't put it to use - would that show irony?
I told you all people are endowed with free will, but most choose to follow their programmed set of conditioned responses and desires - hence, not exercising their free will - is that so hard for you to understand?
.
Last edited by Black Man; 04-29-2009 at 05:49 PM.
I understand what you 2 are saying, but I still don't see how what man does is different from animal.
Say a human being acts selflessly. They are doing so because, essentially, they are gratifying themselves. The feeling they get by "choosing" to do good is the reward in as of itself.
By creating notions of "Right" and "Wrong" or "good" and "bad", man establishes a system or pattern of behavior that increases in predictability depending on how strong that code is.
Essentally, that person is doing what makes them FEEL GOOD, on some level. The reasons or beliefs that person holds aren't important.
My dog can open the cabinet and get the dog biscuits out while I'm away at work. The food would provide instant gratification on a basic level, and yet she does not open that cabinet because she knows that I will be upset and that it is "bad" to open the cabinet.
Monkeys have proven in studies and by observation to often act on emotion, protecting loved ones and setting aside self-preservation.
I am saying that different practices, rituals, and moral codes that people take part in, are ultimately decided by what makes a person feel good. Merely beasts acting on gratification.
--youreallfags.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks