Jump to content


Photo

Theory of Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#21 Dalriada

Dalriada

    -dono

  • Sempais
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts

Posted 01 November 2008 - 12:10 PM

QUOTE
However Darwins theory of evolution is not perfect either.


That's why the current theory of evolution is not the Darwin's theory, but has changed with the new discoveries in biology.

QUOTE
In truth it is unlikely we will ever know for sure what happened we can only make caclulated guesses based on what we know and we will never know 100% what happened.


Just like we can't be sure the world has not been created 3 years ago by an eccentric japanese schoolgirl. But I'm not sure it's pretty relevant in the scientific debate, to be honest.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

#22 Gustav1976

Gustav1976

    -sama

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1825 posts

Posted 01 November 2008 - 12:40 PM

The world was created 3 years ago by an eccentric japanese schoolgirl? WOWIE!! tongue.gif
Back to the relevance of my comment in the debate, it is quite relevant as I was illutsrating my point. Eitherway even current theories of evolution are not perfect as we only have a limited understanding of genetics to this point.

#23 sayonara solitia

sayonara solitia

    -san

  • Kouhais
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts
  • Interests:I lovvvvve Death Note and ippo

Posted 02 November 2008 - 11:39 AM

I want to become GOD ...

just kidding because there is no such thing as God in the first place

the whole religion things are faith - that is, they are not FACT. I dont even understand how ppl can believe in religion.... unless they are indoctrinated when they were really little.... to me its really immature because you are like believing in things that were made up by some random humans... we dont even know whether we need events to cause another events.. for e.g. big bang -> Earth -> human .... cant we just cut the whole process ....i think our assumption is we need something for an event to occur or for things to exist......

for some reason religious ppl believe design is impossible and hence god must have made it... the whole "design" thing is meaningless because its again man made perception of objects......

I think people should stick to science instead of randomness like religion because they are Absolute... its not guessing.... religion is pretty naaive


#24 Bulletspawn

Bulletspawn

    -chi

  • Kouhais
  • Pip
  • 45 posts

Posted 02 November 2008 - 09:02 PM

QUOTE (sayonara solitia @ Nov 02 2008, 12:39 PM)
for some reason religious ppl believe design is impossible and hence god must have made it... the whole "design" thing is meaningless because its again man made perception of objects......

I'm not entirely sure about design but I think I'm saying something similar. If you tell a religious person that the universe was created by the big bang you will get a response somewhat like 'the big bang must of had a cause, it was caused by god!'; the way I see it this statement is a contradiction in itself, it states that everything must have been created somehow. So why is it that nothing created god? surely its just as likely that the universe just plain exists. If you say the universe must have been made by something - then surely god must have been made by something which in turn was made by something else (try not to think about it too much it's an infinite loop and doesn't make sense).

Well that's my main god vs science argument, to relate this to evolution: 'evolution has neither been proved nor disproved just like god; evolution is just as likely as the religous argument infact maybe moreso since we figured this out ourselves rather than listening to the teachings of people we've never met.



Side note: kudos Dalriada on the Suzumiya Haruhi reference, I just realised you can relate anime to anything rolleyes.gif

#25 Gustav1976

Gustav1976

    -sama

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1825 posts

Posted 02 November 2008 - 09:46 PM

hmm you make some good points there bullet, I prefer to keep an open-mond on the grounds that the one thing I'm 100% sure of is that I don't know 100% of everything tongue.gif
So far even the most intelligent people on our planet have only been able to say this about the universe:
Saying the universe is anything means absolutely nothing as saying such a thing is just an exercise in grammar.
Side note: according to one philospophical theory however i am a figment of your imagine you twisted freak lol

#26 monsta

monsta

    -the bee's knees

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 02 November 2008 - 10:27 PM

The theory of evolution like all theories is not perfect. They cannot explain everything and are subject to change (even the theory of gravity has changed over the centuries). That doesn't mean the theories are wrong, they just can't explain everything.

Take Darwin's theory; his theory formed the basis of the evolution theory. Although his theory was good it has changed over time (thanks to the discovery of DNA) and has grown into the theory we know today. The basic principles are the same but the theory has become more robust in light of new evidence. All theories undergo similar processes and it's a classic example that just because a theory changes doesn't mean it is wrong.

Off course some theories are more widely accepted than others, so it is not always cut and dry. Saying that, science does not provide all the answers, so it is inevitable people will look elsewhere for answers. The big bang describes how the world started but it does not explain how the universe was created (what created the big bang?) Another misconception, science and religon do not answer the same questions. So it very possible for a scientist to be deeply religious. The things aren't mutually exclusive.

#27 CASSHERNxLYUZE

CASSHERNxLYUZE

    -chan

  • Kouhais
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 11:02 AM

QUOTE (koiji @ Sep 12 2008, 02:12 PM)
I know many Atheists and Agnostics who believe in the theory of evolution.. What else is there to believe in (No offense.. )?

A theory is a theory. No matter how popular it is, the simple fact remains that it hasn't been proven. What is there to believe in? huh.gif
My enemies just call me "Casshern".
- Casshern (Casshern Sins Ep. 01)

#28 Gustav1976

Gustav1976

    -sama

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1825 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 11:37 AM

I think I get your point Cass but the way you put it doen't really make much sense to me. Belief has nothing to do with proof as iyt's possible to believe something that hasn't been proved.eg.A few people I know believe I have a soul but that's never actually been proven tongue.gif

#29 Dalriada

Dalriada

    -dono

  • Sempais
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 11:37 AM

QUOTE (CASSHERNxLYUZE @ Nov 13 2008, 05:02 AM)
A theory is a theory. No matter how popular it is, the simple fact remains that it hasn't been proven. What is there to believe in? huh.gif

It's an abuse of language, but it can be explained.
If I say "Do you believe in gravitation ?", would you answer no ?
And yet, the theory of gravitation is just a theory, exactly like the theory of evolution.

Because science does not prove theory (More than that, it can't prove them. Big difference between science and math). It just try to disprove them.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

#30 Gustav1976

Gustav1976

    -sama

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1825 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 11:52 AM

I believe that Dalraida is right more or less, science isn't supposed to prove anything it is just the name of a process we use to investigate a theory and good science during an investigation always has TWO(2) theories: a central theory that is being tested and a "null hypothesis" which is one that simply states that the other theory is wrong.

#31 CASSHERNxLYUZE

CASSHERNxLYUZE

    -chan

  • Kouhais
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 03:31 PM

QUOTE (Dalriada @ Nov 13 2008, 05:37 AM)
And yet, the theory of gravitation is just a theory, exactly like the theory of evolution.

I thought it's called "The Law of Gravity"? huh.gif
My enemies just call me "Casshern".
- Casshern (Casshern Sins Ep. 01)

#32 Dalriada

Dalriada

    -dono

  • Sempais
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 03:44 PM

QUOTE (CASSHERNxLYUZE @ Nov 13 2008, 09:31 AM)
I thought it's called "The Law of Gravity"? huh.gif

And a law is just how we call a famous theory, there's no scientific difference between the two things.

If you don't believe me, try to find a proof of the theory of gravitation

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

#33 darkdog

darkdog

    -dredg

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1406 posts
  • Location:poutena @ portugal
  • Interests:anime (seriously!! i'm not kiddin'!), music (hard rock, alt rock, "nu metal", progressive rock, etc etc) and sheep above all.

Posted 13 November 2008 - 04:03 PM

QUOTE
Belief has nothing to do with proof as iyt's possible to believe something that hasn't been proved.

doesn't believing have all to do with proof? if you have proof of something, then believing otherwise is ridiculous… believing is precisely accepting something that hasn't been proven as true.

obviously, what is proof for some isn't for others, so there's always room for discussion when more than one person's involved tongue.gif
~ such a shame, my defenses have become my own restrictions... ~ [ lostprophets ]
~ my best days will never be behind me, my best days will never cease to find me.. ~ [XthrowdownX]
user posted image

#34 CASSHERNxLYUZE

CASSHERNxLYUZE

    -chan

  • Kouhais
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 04:25 PM

QUOTE (Dalriada @ Nov 13 2008, 09:44 AM)
And a law is just how we call a famous theory, there's no scientific difference between the two things.

The Theory of Evolution is also famous, how come it's never called a "law"? huh.gif


QUOTE
If you don't believe me, try to find a proof of the theory of gravitation

Well, I'm not interested in doing that, and even if I am, I have no idea on how to go about it. You're the scientific one, why don't you do it then just publish your finding in some science journal or something?


My enemies just call me "Casshern".
- Casshern (Casshern Sins Ep. 01)

#35 Dalriada

Dalriada

    -dono

  • Sempais
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 04:34 PM

QUOTE
The Theory of Evolution is also famous, how come it's never called a "law"? huh.gif


You want to know a funny thing ?
The law of gravitation, discovered by Isaac Newton, is factually completely wrong. It has been disproved by the theory of relativity, discovered by Albert Einstein.

But for some things (with human-level weights or speeds), the theory of gravitation is still useful, that why we still use it. But try to launch a rocket using the newtonian theory of gravitation....


QUOTE
Well, I'm not interested in doing that, and even if I am, I have no idea on how to go about it. You're the scientific one, why don't you do it then just publish your finding in some science journal or something?


Understanding the basic principles of science is hardly important enough to be published in anything but an high school journal.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

#36 monsta

monsta

    -the bee's knees

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 13 November 2008 - 05:27 PM

QUOTE (CASSHERNxLYUZE @ Nov 13 2008, 11:02 AM)
A theory is a theory. No matter how popular it is, the simple fact remains that it hasn't been proven. What is there to believe in? huh.gif

That's not completely true. There's a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution fossil records, genetics etc. Like the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution has evolved since it was first discovered.

Darwin made a series of observations but had no knowledge of genetics to back his theory up. This is ONE of the reasons why Darwin's theory was so heavily disputed. Since then however, the theory has gained further backing when people discovered genetics. As a result it was more widely accepted. It is also important to note that any widely accepted theories goes under A LOT of scrutiny before it becomes widely accepted. In other words, a theory can never become widely accepted without any proof.

Off course theories are never 100% accurate but that doesn't mean they are useless. Another important thing to remember is the theory of gravity did not challenge the fundamental believes of Christianity (and other religions) so this theory was never really disputed by religious bodies. As theory of evolution challenges these beliefs it is to be expected that it would face more scrutiny. This will happen regardless of how robust the theory of evolution becomes.

Also, strictly speaking, gravity is NOT a law it is a theory. Newton did make some laws which are widely accepted (even today, except for specific scenarios) but it did not mean the theory of gravity became law. These laws were superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity; perfect prove that his laws were not completely solid.

#37 Barbobot

Barbobot

    -the Pirate King

  • Fansub TV Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4328 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, MA (college); Randolph, NJ (hometown)
  • Interests:Barbobot's Anime List:
    http://myanimelist.net/animelist/Barbobot

    www.animecalendar.net

Posted 14 November 2008 - 12:17 AM

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

Please read that briefly if you still argue the "but it's only a theory" argument. Gravity is only a theory. The Cell Theory, stating that cells are the basic unit structure of all living things, is just that too. A theory. A scientific theory isn't just any half-assed idea someone comes up with and calls a theory. It has to be backed up by observation and experimentation of the facts that support it.

#38 CASSHERNxLYUZE

CASSHERNxLYUZE

    -chan

  • Kouhais
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 14 November 2008 - 12:45 AM

QUOTE
You want to know a funny thing ?
The law of gravitation, discovered by Isaac Newton, is factually completely wrong. It has been disproved by the theory of relativity, discovered by Albert Einstein.

Then someone should really try to do something about that. Idiots like myself, who comprise majority of the world's population (no, I don't have the statistics for that, but it can be empirically observed), end up actually thinking that they are indeed what they are called - "laws". Roughly the same way that some scientific minds and atheists think that just because it is said in the Bible that God created the world in seven days, it is to be taken as "seven human days".

QUOTE
But for some things (with human-level weights or speeds), the theory of gravitation is still useful, that why we still use it. But try to launch a rocket using the newtonian theory of gravitation....

Why would I want to launch a rocket in first place? huh.gif

You keep talking about these big applications of scientific theories... but are they really any good?


QUOTE
Understanding the basic principles of science is hardly important enough to be published in anything but an high school journal.

I remember saying "...or something."



QUOTE
That's not completely true. There's a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution fossil records, genetics etc. Like the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution has evolved since it was first discovered.

Darwin made a series of observations but had no knowledge of genetics to back his theory up. This is ONE of the reasons why Darwin's theory was so heavily disputed. Since then however, the theory has gained further backing when people discovered genetics. As a result it was more widely accepted. It is also important to note that any widely accepted theories goes under A LOT of scrutiny before it becomes widely accepted. In other words, a theory can never become widely accepted without any proof.

Off course theories are never 100% accurate but that doesn't mean they are useless. Another important thing to remember is the theory of gravity did not challenge the fundamental believes of Christianity (and other religions) so this theory was never really disputed by religious bodies. As theory of evolution challenges these beliefs it is to be expected that it would face more scrutiny. This will happen regardless of how robust the theory of evolution becomes.

I'll wait for that "Missing Link" to actually be discovered, thank you. It's a matter of science, so I've got to see some empirical evidence first, right?



QUOTE
Please read that briefly if you still argue the "but it's only a theory" argument. Gravity is only a theory. The Cell Theory, stating that cells are the basic unit structure of all living things, is just that too. A theory. A scientific theory isn't just any half-assed idea someone comes up with and calls a theory. It has to be backed up by observation and experimentation of the facts that support it.

Yeah, but despite of which, and despite having the same guidelines and standards, scientific minds can't always agree on one theory, can they?
My enemies just call me "Casshern".
- Casshern (Casshern Sins Ep. 01)

#39 Dalriada

Dalriada

    -dono

  • Sempais
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts

Posted 14 November 2008 - 01:34 AM

QUOTE
Then someone should really try to do something about that. Idiots like myself, who comprise majority of the world's population (no, I don't have the statistics for that, but it can be empirically observed), end up actually thinking that they are indeed what they are called - "laws".


It's not idiocy, just a lack of education.

QUOTE
Why would I want to launch a rocket in first place? huh.gif

You keep talking about these big applications of scientific theories... but are they really any good?


Yes.
And I really feel that you're deliberately obtuse if you can't see the advantages of the satellites, meteorology, the GPS, inter-continental communications and I forget some of them.
It's not just abstract science, we're using applications of those theories everyday.

QUOTE

I'll wait for that "Missing Link" to actually be discovered, thank you. It's a matter of science, so I've got to see some empirical evidence first, right?


Sadly, it won't work.
Because no matter what kind of intermediary state between a great ape or a man we could present, you would say "It's a great ape, or it's a man, but it's not a missing link".
That's what happen when people choose their conclusion in advance, they become close-minded.

I could search the web to find some relevant articles, but it would be a waste of time, since you've decided not to change your mind.



A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

#40 monsta

monsta

    -the bee's knees

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 14 November 2008 - 01:38 AM

QUOTE (CASSHERNxLYUZE)
Yeah, but despite of which, and despite having the same guidelines and standards, scientific minds can't always agree on one theory, can they?

It's a fact of life that you'll not get everyone to agree on something. So there will always be opponents to a theory/belief, no matter how robust it is or how deeply ingrained a belief is. Just because a tiny minority (because it is a minority) disagrees with this theory does not mean the theory has no credibility.

QUOTE (CASSHERNxLYUZE @ Nov 14 2008, 12:45 AM)
I'll wait for that "Missing Link" to actually be discovered, thank you. It's a matter of science, so I've got to see some empirical evidence first, right?

The evidence supporting evolution is quite substantial. For thousands of years farmers have selectively breed their animals in order to gain desired traits (larger size, increased milk production etc etc). This selective breeding closely follows the theory of evolution.

With our knowledge of genetics increasing they can even prove how selective breeding works. Mendel's laws is famous example. Another case of a new discovery or application of science that can do some good.
Mendel's Laws

Then there's fossil records which can prove that animals of the past shared many traits to modern animals, suggesting they were related to one another. An example: many animals share the same pentadactyl limb (mammals/birds etc). This suggests a common ancestor:

Then there's resistant bacteria that grow resistant to drugs; a good case of evolution. No one can really deny the existence of drug resistant bacteria/viruses. It should be noted these bacteria/virus did not exist before the drugs were made.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users