The Evolution Debate

[Dazey]

Yep, I went there again.

So basically to avoid dragging the US Politics thread off track I'll start this instead. I don't want to be disrespectful to anybody but I'd like to continue this conversation with @SteveAJones without pissing on anybody's political bonfire. 

Quoted from the US Politics thread. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Dazey

[Fitha_whiskey]

[PappyTron]

[Gracii Guns]

*facepalm*

Can't wait to be locking this one in the near future. Cheers McLeod. 

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, Gracii Guns said:

*facepalm*

Can't wait to be locking this one in the near future. Cheers McLeod. 

Please don't Grace. It's a totally valid debate and especially relevant in context.

I'm deadly serious that I will be 100% respectful. I promise.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Dazey

[PappyTron]

Just now, Dazey said:

Please don't Grace. I'm deadly serious that I will be 100% respectful. I promise.

Whipped.

[Dazey]

Just now, PappyTron said:

Whipped.

Piss off Pappy! 

 

*He doesn't count!

[Gracii Guns]

Please can you turn this into an Evolution vs. Creationism poll, and then settle this debate for once and for all? It will save a lot of arguing. Who is to disagree with the minds of MYGNRFORUM? 

[Dazey]

16 minutes ago, Gracii Guns said:

Please can you turn this into an Evolution vs. Creationism poll, and then settle this debate for once and for all? It will save a lot of arguing. Who is to disagree with the minds of MYGNRFORUM? 

No because that's not what it's about. When creationism is involved it's game over because you can't argue against faith with evidence.

Steve's point was that the fossil record doesn't support evolutionary theory.

The reason I started the thread is that I wanted to deconstruct and debate that argument without having to take things down the religious route.

Science people. Let's leave religion out of it for once.

So, fossil record disproves evolution? Go!

Edited December 8, 2016 by Dazey

[Gracii Guns]

I did a bit of reading on this a while back. I tend to be very sceptical, because although the fossil record evidence held some weight (and certainly convinced some experts), I know nothing about paleontology, geology or much else to contrast it with. I'd rather not risk looking like a pentecostal textbook burner when I can't argue my point, so am restful in the knowledge that one day there will be more clarity on the beginning of time than we have now.

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, Gracii Guns said:

I did a bit of reading on this a while back. I tend to be very sceptical, because although the fossil record evidence held some weight (and certainly convinced some experts), I know nothing about paleontology, geology or much else to contrast it with. I'd rather not risk looking like a pentecostal textbook burner when I can't argue my point, so am restful in the knowledge that one day there will be more clarity on the beginning of time than we have now.

The beginning of time is not something that any scientist would claim to know about. Or at least how it came about. The Big Bang and evolution deal only with what happened at or immediatley after "creation" which technically even leaves room for a potential creator. Anything before that point a scientist will tell you that we simply don't know. yet 

One thing I have to disagree with you on though is the "some experts" point. If by "some" you mean pretty much "any and all" then that's pretty much correct. 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Dazey

[Len Cnut]

Tits.

(me, Spunko and Pappy made a clandestine pact to ruin your thread...for no other reason than the fact that you earnestly appear to want it to not be ruined )

[Dazey]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Tits.

(me, Spunko and Pappy made a clandestine pact to ruin your thread...for no other reason than the fact that you earnestly appear to want it to not be ruined )

I'll see you a tits and raise you a bollocks!

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

I'll see you a tits and raise you a bollocks!

I'll see your bollocks and uh...make you an offer you can't refuse sailor

(no, seriously, i won't ruin it!)

Edited December 8, 2016 by Len Cnut

[slipnslider]

Humans took wolves and turned them into huskies, chihuahuas, and weiner dogs just by choosing different mates for them.

That is evolution, controlled by humans.

[Dazey]

18 minutes ago, slipnslider said:

Humans took wolves and turned them into huskies, chihuahuas, and weiner dogs just by choosing different mates for them.

That is evolution, controlled by humans.

We've also done it in a lab on a bacterial level in a much shorter space of time. Given that this has been possible over the last 30 years or so it's not a stretch to go from single cells to us over the best part of 5 billion years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Edited December 8, 2016 by Dazey

[slipnslider]

Kind of seems like evolution deniers don't want to show up and try to explain their perspective.  Perhaps because it's indefensible, without resorting to mythology and superstition.

[SteveAJones]

6 hours ago, Dazey said:

We've also done it in a lab on a bacterial level in a much shorter space of time. Given that this has been possible over the last 30 years or so it's not a stretch to go from single cells to us over the best part of 5 billion years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

However, that isn't natural selection. I don't doubt genetic mutation occurs among species -- it's essential to the survival of species -- but as I said earlier the fossil record does not support the Theory of Evolution's "from many, one" argument. By that, I mean so far as I know there is nothing to support goldfish became cows, blue jays became humped-back whales. Ultimately, this leads to we are descended from apes, right? We'll, I happen to believe there are bigger differences between homo sapiens and apes than just genetics. I'm not a biologist so if you're expecting Biology 400-level discussion from me you'll be disappointed.  

[MB.]

I am out of likes, but I already know am with Dazey in this whole discussion. 

[SteveAJones]

Proponents of the Theory of Evolution proclaim that given enough TIME and RESOURCES life evolved into that as we know it today. By this logic, if I disassemble a Boeing 747 jetliner into a million pieces, given enough TIME and RESOURCES it will evolve back into a fully functioning Boeing 747. Granted, a jetliner is an inanimate object, the reassembly of which does not entail genetic mutation, but I hope we can all agree there is more to the origin of species than genetic mutation. Put differently, perhaps that is what has always bothered me about the Theory of Evolution, the insistence that all life is a matter of chance and adaptation, completely devoid of intelligent design. 

I wonder how many proponents of the Theory of Evolution also ascribe to the Infinite Monkey Theory. Both theories have things in common. 

[action]

the problems with this discussion, and many other discussions, start with the concept of "anthropocentrism".

(Wikipedia definition: " the belief that considers human beings to be the most significant entity of the universe and interprets or regards the world in terms of human values and experiences")

when we ponder over the meaning of life, the meaning and origin of the universe, the concept of life on other plants, the origins of life on this planet, our conclusions are always polluted by the slippery slope of "anthropocentrism"

dig this:

we are not the ending stage of evolution. beings exist that are more intelligent than us (even on our planet), more advanced than us in every single way.

the rejection of the evolution theory is "anthropocentrism" taken to the extreme. it not only assumes that humans are perfect beings, have always been like that and will ever be. it rejects everything that came before us, because evolution downplays the value of "human beings". if we weren't always as advanced as we are now, it means we can advance even further and today we aren't perfect after all

[SteveAJones]

14 minutes ago, action said:

the problems with this discussion, and many other discussions, start with the concept of "anthropocentrism".

(Wikipedia definition: " the belief that considers human beings to be the most significant entity of the universe and interprets or regards the world in terms of human values and experiences")

when we ponder over the meaning of life, the meaning and origin of the universe, the concept of life on other plants, the origins of life on this planet, our conclusions are always polluted by the slippery slope of "anthropocentrism"

dig this:

we are not the ending stage of evolution. beings exist that are more intelligent than us (even on our planet), more advanced than us in every single way.

the rejection of the evolution theory is "anthropocentrism" taken to the extreme. it not only assumes that humans are perfect beings, have always been like that and will ever be. it rejects everything that came before us, because evolution downplays the value of "human beings". if we weren't always as advanced as we are now, it means we can advance even further and today we aren't perfect after all

I actually agree with you in principle, that principle being all beliefs are self-referential. Perhaps this is what is meant by anthropocentrism? I can also agree that we are not at the end stage of evolution insofar as biological mutations and environmental adaptation. However, I see nothing to support this notion that there is more intelligent life than us (homo sapiens) on Earth or elsewhere. Theory of Evolution does not merely downplay the importance of homo sapiens, it relegates them to the animal kingdom (if I understand it correctly). 

[action]

also, our capability at performing science is inherently limited by our physiology.

put it this way. a monkey is capable of science too. he can watch certain processes happening and then make certain conclusions and act upon his conclusions. this has been shown in experiments many times over. but there are limits at a monkey's capacity to "know" his world.

and here comes the shocker: so does our physiology impair our own capacity at understanding the world.

there is this irrational belief in our intellectual capacities, we believe we will understand the universe "some day".

but as time goes on, science is encountering more and more problems they don't seem to explain.

the uncertainty principle on a quantum level is a nice example at how impaired we are at undertanding nature.

but just because "we" can explain quantum mechanics, doesn't mean there "isn't" a logical solution...only we aren't intelligent enough to understand

as i said, evolution is an ongoing process. in 300.000 years time we will have evolved dramatically, and so will our intelligence. wether we will be intelligent enough, then, to fully understand quantum mechanics, i dont know.

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by action

[Fitha_whiskey]

Bunch of mumbo jumbo, as I expected. I'll take the fossils, DNA and other scientific evidence.

The sheer mathematics of the universe guarantee there is an abundance of intelligent life out there. 

[SteveAJones]

Just now, Fitha_whiskey said:

The sheer mathematics of the universe guarantee there is an abundance of intelligent life out there. 

Mathematics can provide odds and probabilities, but in and of itself it guarantees nothing with regard to the presence of intelligent life elsewhere. To suggest otherwise is to subscribe to Infinite Monkey Theory, or the Theory of Evolution, that just given enough TIME and ELEMENTS out of chaos comes order.